My question is essentially this: wouldn't a good starting point for any philosophy of ethics be the natural equality of all human beings. In other words, shouldn't any two individuals have the same rights with respect to the other? Furthermore, shouldn't it require something real and tangible, something observable, measurable and testable to deviate from the basic physical reality that human beings are in a single biological category and, therefore, the same moral category?
Danny takes me to task for my claim that academic philosophers outline one set of ethical behaviors for citizens (or subjects) and another for governments (or rulers). According to Danny, mainstream philosophy already accepts this view. He claims that this pillar of modern ethics can be traced back to some guy named John Locke (just kidding, I know Locke, Lost is one of my favorite shows). Locke says two things, and I will abbreviate the quotes--they are laid out more fully in Danny's post.
First from In Section 4 of the second treatise, Of Civil Government:
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection . . .
He goes on to caveat the situation in which God designates a ruler. Which was probably pretty important since he worked for/wrote in support of an English lord and thereafter King (formerly Prince) William of Orange.
Honestly, I don't know how one would know if God has designated a ruler, and I don't know that Locke put his bosses in the category of the divinely appointed. I do think that it is noteworthy that his writings were in the support of the violent (although not so violent in England proper) subjugation of a population under the rule of a king. To be fair, there weren't (and still aren't) alot of jobs for philosophers outside of legitimizing the rule of a particular political group. But I digress.
So, except for the god thing, this seems pretty solid and in line with what I consider to be a sound starting point for an ethical system. He even says that everybody in this "state of nature" can defend themselves and their property.
Ah, but without a central authority, he claims, there will be naught but endless war! His evidence for this claim? There is none. He's simply certain that it would happen. He is sure that under no circumstances could people formulate a solution between arguing parties that doesn't rely on an ultimate violent enforcer. While this seems ridiculous to anyone who has spent a lifetime interacting in society with no need to call upon the monopolistic arbiter of disputes, I don't want to focus on this empty assertion (maybe another time, John).
Locke continues in Section 21:
To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men's putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature: for where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power . . .Immediately upon being declared a being with an identical moral nature to every other human, one group of individuals "put themselves into society" where another group of individuals form the "authority." These two groups of individuals have entirely different moral structures surrounding them. One individual is "good" when he kills and/or takes. Another, in what by any measurable physical metric is the commission of the exact same act of killing and/or taking, is "bad."
Despite Danny's claim to the opposite, Locke, and all other (recorded) philosophers throughout history rely on the manipulation of abstract concepts (previously "god's will," now "the authority of the community") to justify the violent coercion of one group of individuals by another.
One last note, Locke does allow for the society to replace one government with another, which sounds pretty useful. During their time of "legitimacy," however, most governments build the sort of supremacy of arms that makes citizen/subject rebellions a fairly suicidal prospect.
To wrap up this post, I would like to state for the record that I have great respect for the towering intellects of the enlightenment philosophers. Each of them is attempting to put forth radical ideas about human equality while also endeavoring to get paid (and not executed) by people whose positions rest on an axiom of human inequality. In any case, Locke is probably the least offensive when it comes to using abstractions to override reality.
But I think it is a dreadful mistake to overlook this obvious inconsistency. Why must we pretend that ethics begins from the physically grounded principle of human equality when it is clearly founded on the ethical supremacy of empty concepts such as the common authority, the public good, god's will, the health of the race, the defense of the nation, and so forth.
These concepts cannot be accessed by individual people, since they are not part of the physical world. In such cases, the most heavily armed usually speaks for the abstract concept. The speaker (or speakers) can now define moral categories that have no basis in reality. Since the abstract concept is seen as the greater good, the arbitrarily defined moral categories trump the principle of human equality. I am not aware of any society grounded on any philosophy of ethics that did/does not arrange itself in such a way.
And so, I ask again, what is the objection to founding ethics on accessible reality and refusing to grant moral primacy to empty abstract categories?
3 comments:
Haha easy there, buddy. Your objections to the account of the origins of government have already been made famously and at length by David Hume (see, for example, "Of the First Principles of Government"), Robert Nozick (in Anarchy, State, and Utopia) and a number of others. And a host of thinkers have pointed out that while considerable incentives might exist to avoid a Hobbesian state of war (as Locke points out), it is not obvious why a government would be necessary to settle disputes (see, for example, David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom, Ed Stringham's Anarchy and the Law, Bruce Benson's The Enterprise of Law, just to name a few). That's why I mentioned that I'd need to flesh out the discussion a little more (sorry about not getting around to that; things have been crazy).
I was only presenting Locke's views, not holding them up as gospel. Locke was important for being the guy people think of first when they talk about the double standard in political theory. That's not because he was right; it's because he was the one who started the ball rolling. It was Locke who famously pointed out that political philosophy must seek to justify government on some basis of equality of authority for all people (unless, as you point out, God specifically designated one as leader, which Locke didn't think had happened; the point was rhetorical--kind of like saying "Well sure it would be possible for you to have the authority you claim...if God himself came down and gave it to you"). So that's why I brought him up when you suggested that philosophers hold a double standard between government officials and ordinary citizens. That Locke failed in his attempt to follow through with such a justification is uncontroversial. But nevertheless, it's a noteworthy episode in the history of thought because it set the tone for the debates that came after it.
Oops...wrong Hume essay...I meant to cite his "Of the Original Contract".
Actually...did you read my post all the way through? I discuss all this at the end...
Post a Comment