Now I would like to turn to some of the most important moral principles for political philosophy. First will be liberty. I would like to consider what liberty is, and how we might reinforce the argument for popular sovereignty by appealing to liberty, and perhaps narrow a bit what type of government may be ideal.
Of just about any idea or principle the moral realist may ask, "Is it good, bad, or neutral?" Of course, in a previous post I suggested two tools for evaluating the answer to this question: Asking God and conscience. Now, both of these methods confirm to me that at least some idea of liberty (for there is a variety of ideas as to what liberty means) is inherently good; furthermore, it seems that most people agree with this, so it seems that we would do best to assume that at least some idea of liberty is good. This naturally leads to another question, "What conception of liberty is morally good?" Actually, I think that I will make a semantic shift here: I will refer to the conception of liberty that is as inclusive as possible while including only principles which may be referred to as liberties and remaining in all respects morally good as true liberty. In cases where there is no need to distinguish between this "true" conception of liberty and other conceptions it may be assumed that by liberty I mean true liberty.
Codifying moral truth, like codifying scientific truth, may be difficult, because, while there exist some very general principles, their interaction can be complicated: Of course we could say that true liberty consists of whatever God says it does, and this is wholly general, but unless we can listen to Him perfectly (and reason perfectly when He withholds information), this will not yield an accurate conception. So let us reason what we can, and at least get some idea.
Before beginning, let me point out three important guiding principles. First, liberty is not just good, but inherently good. That is, there are many things which are good only because they facilitate moral principles; others are themselves basic moral principles, and liberty is among these. This you may take as axiomatic if you like: in fact my source for the statement is simply that God says so, that I have myself received very clear teaching from God on the subject. Second, I require Ethics to be self-consistent. That is, if there is a conflict between ethical principles, then they must not be wholly general, but approximations of the truth (at best), and the deepest reality must resolve this conflict. This rule applies to liberty: The truest principles of liberty cannot contradict one another. Third, it is important for us to distinguish the principle of agency from liberty. The clearest distinction between the two is that agency or free will is a simple reality (although there is an interesting discussion to be had on the subject of determinism and free will, which I will have to address sometime, I do not believe that it is such a deep contradiction as many would hold), a physical truth, if you will. Liberty, on the other hand, is a moral truth, something which ought to be, whether it is or not. Free will is our ability to choose, and no matter what influence may be exerted by others, I may still choose one way or another, even when my ability to act on those choices is limited. Liberty, on the other hand, is the right to act on my choices. If I am physically restrained, then my liberty is certainly reduced, but my agency is not: I may still choose whether to struggle or submit, I may still choose to believe what I will, and I may even choose to exert my muscles as if to rise and walk away from my restraints; I may not, however, actually rise and walk, no matter what I choose. But, then, actually leaving my restraints behind is not, in the purest sense, my choice, but a consequence of my choice to exert myself. Now, I will need to address free will more fully at other times, but the distinction is essential for us to bear in mind that liberty is more than simply the ability to choose.
In attempting to establish a conception of true liberty, I suppose that I should first establish what liberty is not. For one thing, true liberty does not consist of complete freedom from the consequences of our actions and choices. Liberty is not a tool of Hedonism. Actually, such a conception of liberty requires you to say that liberty is itself the only moral truth, which, beside contradicting revelation and conscience, seems independently unlikely: for if there is such a thing as moral truth, which ought to be, then why should we assume that there is only one moral truth? Anyway, even without moral considerations, we have to deal with physical truths as well, and the universe is not kind to the belief that you can ignore the consequences of your actions (try choosing not to eat for a few weeks without consequence, for example). So a true conception of liberty is certainly constrained in at least some particulars.
To what extent, then, is true liberty constrained? Well, perhaps the simplest constraints come from the requirement of self-consistency: If, for example, one person is allowed such liberty that he can steal from his next-door neighbor without consequence, then it infringes on the rights of the neighbor, so that a prohibition against theft is clearly consistent with liberty.
Beyond the need for self-consistency, the need for consistency with other moral principles forces us to say that liberty does not necessarily imply the ability to act without consequence contrary to other moral truths. That is, it is not necessarily inconsistent with liberty for a law to prohibit adultery and to punish it if one believes that adultery is immoral. However, a key question arises as to the role of government: Is it proper for government to punish moral transgression, or should that be left to God? In answer, consider the ability of government to err, both in enforcement and in establishment of moral principles. While not a basic principle of liberty to allow the transgression of moral law, it is dangerous to grant government a primary role and great powers in the enforcement of moral law, save perhaps that God Himself were present and governing. As such, it may be considered consistent with liberty to leave to God the consequences of such transgression, and while not required by liberty in principle, as a practical matter it is more likely to be favorable toward liberty to diminish government's enforcement of moral principles. Government enforcement of moral principles is not always bad, but we should at least be very wary of it and limit such enforcement.
Let me finish with two ideas. First, it is not only consistent with but required by liberty to allow people to pursue their moral duty to the fullest extent possible. Finally, although diminishing government's enforcement of moral principles may be more likely to favor liberty, that does not imply that government must recognize as moral those principles and actions which are in fact immoral. I will have to return to both of these extensively in future posts, both because I have not offered justification and because they are central to key freedoms (such as the freedom of religion), but for now this will have to suffice.
Title: US Declaration of Independence
No comments:
Post a Comment