I've posited in the past (and present) that government is inherently immoral. Here is my explanation in response to a facebook post and a comment from someone who supports "social democracy" or "socialism" as the desired political and economic organization for the United States and the world. Note that I put "socialism" in quotes because apparently they don't go by the dictionary definition of socialism where the means of production are owned and/or controlled by the government, but it's unclear exactly what they do mean by socialism.
The following is how I view the political structure of the United States in regards to, say, redistribution. You may completely disagree, but keep in mind that millions of citizens view it like I do.
There are four groups:
A. Voters and their elected representatives
B. Bureaucrats and law enforcement
C. Taxpayers
D. Recipients of the redistribution
In the case of redistribution, the United States is A directing B to take from C and give to D.
The first immoral part is B taking from C. If C is willing or nearly universally willing, this wouldn't be immoral, but that's not how it is in reality. When a substantial part of C is NOT willing, then this step has a lot in common with banditry - C is forced, with ever increasing levels of violence to comply. In political philosophy the government is described by some as a "stationary bandit" for this very reason. Most people consider banditry by non-government entities to be immoral. Since you've noted that our government is just a covenant between private citizens and a ruling entity, group A is basically directing B to be bandits and are accomplices to the banditry. Since banditry is immoral, group A is also immoral. Group D is the recipient of money that has been acquired immorally and that makes them willing participants and also immoral.
Lastly, you'll probably be quick to point out that group C is immoral because they don't volunteer their money to group D or willingly and happily give it to group B to do what they like with it. I agree with that assessment as well. We therefore agree that at least part of group C is immoral. Note that most people consider banditry even against immoral people to be immoral so that doesn't absolve any of the other groups.
Therefore, since we all belong to one or more of these groups, we are all immoral and so is the government.
Again, I know you don't agree with that and find it "laughable." Nonetheless, that is how millions of people view it to some degree so if and when you lose another election, you'll know what us laughable deplorables are thinking and why we vote against people like you and Hillary. You think we're immoral and you're right. We think you're immoral and we're right, in our unshakably strong opinion.
Also again, we believe government to be a necessary immoral evil. Yes, we're all immoral, but there's no choice but to be so. The human animal is simply a nasty, evil, immoral creature and no matter how we organize ourselves, we will still be that. We can be somewhat more moral by limiting the banditry, but we can only limit it so far and maintain a working civilization.
The last point is that when people make the argument that X is immoral, the answer is yes, but so what? Those sorts of arguments hold no water for me since we're all immoral.
=====
I suppose some of group C might be "moral" if they willingly and happily pay their taxes and would do so without enforcement AND they're not part of group B or D AND they vote against candidates that agree with the forcible extraction of taxes from group C. However, I think those folks are basically suicidal because without said forceable extraction of taxes, I doubt civilization would survive for long and without civilization, the vast majority of us are dead in short order.
20 comments:
Yikes.
we are all immoral
Thus does the the thoroughly modern, technically brilliant, Jewish-secular Bret align himself foursquare behind the traditional Christian notion of original sin.
Peter,
LOL!
Indeed: Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".
Peter,
Ha Ha Ha.
Annoying, but I can't really deny it.
I used to have conversations with Howard that in response to what I call "rabid atheists" who rightly claim that an individual needn't believe in god or be religious to be moral (as best as anyone can), we'd claim yes, but those moral frameworks generally co-evolved with widespread belief in god and religion and without that, it wasn't clear to us that moral structures to support civilization would be possible if there hadn't been widespread belief in god and religion. Maybe, but maybe not.
So I agree that my morality is based on Judeo-Christian morality.
The case that objective morality must be grounded in some belief in the transcendent is just one of a number of lost causes I've dedicated my life to. However, I'm wondering whether there isn't an inverse relationship between the general level of belief in objective morality and the frequency of accusations of immorality in public debate. I'm not sure I understand why taxation has anything to do with morality at all, unless it is imposed for an expressly immoral purpose like starving people or lining personal pockets, but obviously you and a lot of others (on both sides) do because we seem to be hearing this kind of language more and more. "Taxation is theft!" cries the libertarian. "Tax cuts kill people!" counters the leftist. "Let's all take a Valium." says I.
Funnily enough I've been thinking about modern notions of morality recently. I don't know if you have Netflix, but I've been binging on it of late, both for its entertainment value but also because it gives me a good insight into the lives and thinking of young people without having to leave the home or actually talk to them. This week I'm enjoying a comedy series out of Australia called "Rake" that is giving me some chuckles and insights into how our children's generation wrestles with moral challenges.
The protagonist is a fortyish barrister whose chaotic life adventures bring to mind the “lovable rogue” of the old Flashman novels. Frequently drunk, he has a coke habit he can barely manage. He practices on the margins where shysters mingle with legal bottom-feeders and he is chronically short of money, largely due to gambling debts to the wrong people. Much of his time is spent fending off repeated efforts by the tax fraud and professional disciplinary authorities to bring him down, which he does through such shrewd legal maneuvers as pimping for the adjudicators or destroying evidence and lying about it. His marriage blew up years ago and his teen-aged son finds his fumbling parenting efforts farcical. He beds everything in sight, pro or amateur, including clients and opposing counsel during trials (but always with fully informed consent and never exploitatively). Although not particularly handsome or buff, he is nonetheless a magnet for beautiful women and he scores a surprising number of unlikely legal victories by persuading juries of the hypocrisy of the law and those charged with enforcing it.
As the man said, hilarity ensues. It’s all edgy, rollicking fun spiced with Aussie cheek and it aims with no little success to skewer the pompous and priggish. But occasionally he encounters a case or client that involves racist behavior or advocacy and the whole mood changes markedly. Suddenly our hero undergoes a character transformation as extreme as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Farewell moral alley cat, hello righteous parson. His irreverent quips are replaced by homilies redolent of King and we can feel his existential pain as he struggles to reconcile his unquenchable thirst for social justice with his duty as a barrister. Typically these episodes end in a mood of poignant, reflective sadness over the intractability of human sin. No humour, no matter how light or whimsical, dare intrude into what we are clearly expected to understand is the realm of the sacred.
I can argue with the person who says there is no such thing as objective morality or that it’s all relative, but the one who says or clearly believes there is and that this guy illustrates a “higher” morality than that of his/her repressed, racist ancestors leaves me speechless.
[OP:] Most people consider banditry by non-government entities to be immoral. [ ] Since banditry is immoral, group A is also immoral. Group D is the recipient of money that has been acquired immorally and that makes them willing participants and also immoral.
I think you are putting a load on "immoral" that it can't possibly carry, and are ignoring not only how pejorative "banditry" is, but that it might well be a poor word choice.
Latter first. Of course most people consider banditry by non-govt entities to be immoral, because banditry, as commonly understood, involves taking from victims in order to enrich the takers. Countries with extensive welfare nets don't do that — the takers are intermediary. (That isn't to say welfare nets don't have other problems, but that kind of taking doesn't qualify as banditry. In the US, something like 70% of government spending relies upon the government as an intermediary.)
Avoiding the pejorative makes a difference. I think almost all well off taxpayers would agree that those who are well off should have a sense of noblesse oblige. If you replace banditry with "noblesse oblige", does that change anything?
Aside from that, "immoral" is frequently not binary, but rather almost always requires asking "compared to what?"
… without said forceable extraction of taxes, I doubt civilization would survive for long and without civilization, the vast majority of us are dead in short order. gave that game away.
If being moral required vastly more suffering en route to an early death, what the hell good is it?
[Peter:] The case that objective morality must be grounded in some belief in the transcendent is just one of a number of lost causes I've dedicated my life to.
How someone who believes morality must be grounded in the transcendent yet end a sentence in a preposition is a real mystery.
(Hey, I'll be here all week, and do try the veal.)
I am certain that at one point, or, indeed, many points I took the contrary position, and was far too certain in doing so. At the risk of misapplying mathematics to an non-mathematical realm (no doubt Clovis will alert me), this is why:
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
Replace "arithmetic of natural numbers" with "conflict of moral statements" and "… about the natural numbers that are true …" with "… about morality that are true …". The problem should be obvious: absent criteria outside the realm of morality itself, it is impossible to demonstrate the truth of any moral statements.
Therefore, any hope of objective morality requires an appeal to an entity outside the realm of that morality; otherwise, we are reduced to chasing our metaphorical tails.
QED.
Well, except for reality's troubling intrusions.
I suspect I will receive little argument when asserting that many more people now than, say, 100 years ago are willing to acknowledge the existence of that entity. Consequently, should the need for an arbiter external to the moral system be necessary for that moral system to exist, then the evidence of epic breakdowns in moral judgment should surround us.
But it doesn't. Clearly, our treatment of blacks and women (to pick just two identifiable groups) is far better now than 50 years ago, and sympathy for their circumstances is far greater. Per Stephen Pinker's "Better Angels", it people have never been less likely to suffer violent death than now. The #MeToo movement would have been unimaginable even 20 years ago. And, perhaps most tellingly, the Catholic Church, a ground-zero for objective morality, now seems to have had as a major function the organized molestation of boys.
Just as troubling, Islam is another ground zero for objective morality. Anyone care to defend that?
Didn't think so. But even if one were to do so, how could one decide which was superior, Christian morality, or its Islamic counterpart?
I know how I would do so: appealing to a moral system absent an external arbiter.
Maybe not so QED.
[Peter:] I can argue with the person who says there is no such thing as objective morality or that it’s all relative, but the one who says or clearly believes there is and that this guy illustrates a “higher” morality than that of his/her repressed, racist ancestors leaves me speechless.
As well it should.
That would require people knowing more than they could possibly know. Take our racist ancestors for an example. At the beginning of the colonial period, Europeans were routinely encountering people who had scarcely, if at all, removed themselves from the neolithic. Of course now we know that was down to contingent circumstances over which no one had any control, and therefore could neither take credit, nor assign blame.
I can well remember a time when almost everyone took it for granted that gays were perverts who had a choice over their orientation, and that bad mothering was to blame. Would those same people believe the same thing today?
I suspect I will receive little argument when asserting that many more people now than, say, 100 years ago are willing ...
I need to resort to Preview in the worst kind of way (or Blogger needs an edit function even more).
... are unwilling ...
Skipper, In the bad old days, mothers were known to be the cause of all life's ills including gayness, but I think modern thinking is that gayness is normal ergo no blame need be assigned.
I fear to postulate that the old bugaboo evolution may have something to do with parts of the globe "evolving" differently because other than space aliens, it's all we got -- n'est-ce pas?
A personal best. Five comments with one click !
Peter wrote, "I'm not sure I understand why taxation has anything to do with morality at all..."
Again, it has to do with A directing B to take from C and give to D. Is taxation theft? Not to me, but it does have some things in common with it, primarily forcefully taking from the unwilling.
Let's try another example. A mob boss directs his thugs to take from unwilling shopkeepers to give to charities to feed the poor. To me that's still intensely immoral. Perhaps you think that would be okay/moral? A few shopkeepers get their kneecaps broken and many of the rest live in terror, but at least the poor get fed (that part is moral?)?
Compare that to a government administration directs its enforcers/bureaucrats to take from unwilling citizens to feed the poor. I agree that it's different but it has at least something in common with the mob boss version. And I think it has enough in common, that I personally think it's still immoral, though possibly less so.
At best, it seems like a very ends justifies the means sort of morality to me with either the mob boss or the government administration. Though I don't think it even reaches that level because I see massive corruption at each stage of the process. The politicians are corrupt, the IRS is corrupt, the agents are corrupt, taxpayers cheat, people fraudulently fill out applications for public assistance, etc. At least with the mob boss, he doesn't generally pretend to be a good person and though there's potentially more violence and terror, at least there's not so much pretense at every step.
And the mob itself is sort of a government. And many governments are hardly distinguishable from organized crime. And certainly many governments have done horrifically immoral things in the past. And crushing taxation has been one of those things.
Lastly, if it's immoral for a private group, however large, to do something (like take from those unwilling to give), then I don't see how it magically becomes moral when a bigger (or possibly smaller) group that's assigned the name "government" does it.
Hey Skipper wrote: "Of course most people consider banditry by non-govt entities to be immoral, because banditry, as commonly understood, involves taking from victims in order to enrich the takers."
From my point of view, that's definitely wrong.
If the bandits rob folks but then give their stolen proceeds (except for their "take" which politicians get as well) to the poor, is that suddenly moral? To me, it certainly is NOT. If the bandits keep all of the money, perhaps that's even worse, but still bad even if they distribute most of it to others. If you're right about "most people" then I'm simply not "most people" and we'll have to agree to disagree. But keep in mind that since I think pretty much everybody is immoral, what "most people" think about that doesn't have much influence on me.
Hey Skipper wrote: "If you replace banditry with "noblesse oblige", does that change anything?"
Funny that those well off also insist on those less well off also pay. Especially, when those well off can get together and help feed the poor, provide safety nets, etc., directly without having the government be an intermediary. The ONLY reason governments needs to be the intermediary, in my opinion, is that government is the most efficient and forcing people to do things.
Hey Skipper wrote: "If being moral required vastly more suffering en route to an early death, what the hell good is it?"
Perhaps none at all, but that fact can't change immoral into moral.
Hey Skipper wrote: "I think you are putting a load on "immoral" that it can't possibly carry..."
Perhaps. That's why I wrote "[t]he last point is that when people make the argument that X is immoral, the answer is yes, but so what? Those sorts of arguments hold no water for me since we're all immoral."
Maybe it's not that the word "moral" can't carry that weight, but rather, in my opinion, that arguing about morality of government actions is just plain silly. Perhaps said actions are not immoral, but just part of human organization. If so, leave out the arguments regarding morality all together. Perhaps all actions with regard to government simply exist outside the realm of morality. Perhaps the actions of bandits also lies outside the realm of morality. Does a bandit think he's immoral? I doubt it. I'd say it's likely they rationalize their actions.
But it still comes to kinda the same place. I still believe that the government isn't substantially more moral than the bandits since their actions are outside moral argumentation.
This is the problem with not having a transcendental moral authority. Everybody gets to pick and choose what's moral to the point that nothing is inherently moral or immoral. The person who's robbed by the bandits say the bandits are immoral. The bandits (probably) think they are moral (forced into banditry by circumstances, for example). The socialist says it's a moral imperative to have the government control (or own) the means of production. The libertarian say taxation is pretty much the (immoral) equivalent of theft. Who's right? We all are when taking into account our own perspectives and beliefs. None of us are in any sort of objective sense.
In the end, from my perspective and according to my beliefs, governments are inherently immoral.
Bret,
---
In the end, from my perspective and according to my beliefs, governments are inherently immoral.
---
But having also argued that pretty much everyone is immoral, what does matter if government also is?
And having also agreed that governments are a sort of necessary lesser (and immoral) evil, what importance should then anyone attach to your complaint of immorality?
For me, the problem in your argument, Bret, is that you set yourself too easy a task by such a simple exercise on morality. Unless you can provide a more objective ruler in order to measure what you mean by immorality, your binary thinking just condemns us all to the eternal fire.
For example, if we are such hopeless cases, what else, apart from brute force, should stop someone from taking everything you have, your life included? Do you believe brute force is the only thing standing between your well ordered society and complete chaos?
Clovis wrote: "...what else, apart from brute force, should stop someone from taking everything you have, your life included?"
Ummm. That is all that stops all people from taking everything I have anyway, isn't it? I mean, you may (see below) decide not to take from me, but do you think without the police (or some equivalent) and some sort of justice system, that nobody would choose to take from me (except also to the extent I defend myself)?
And even for you, let me ask a hypothetical question: let's say your children were in mortal danger and the only way to save them was to kill me (even though I had nothing to do with them being in danger). I suspect I would be in mortal danger from you in such a situation. And I certainly wouldn't hold that against you.
Of course you really can't answer that question without seeing how you would react under that pressure and neither can I. But my guess is there is little, if anything, you (or I) wouldn't do to save our children.
I think a major basis for all higher mammal action is "take care of your own."
To the extent "brute force" is required to "take care of your own," then brute force will be used. Fortunately, cooperation between massively large groups of humans does a much, much better job of helping us take care of our own.
Unfortunately, humans are unable to have nuanced moral codes that they can universally or close to universally agree on. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is a pretty simple moral statement and mostly agreed upon. And yet there are wars and shootings and genocides and executions, etc. Is there some very complicated moral code that takes all that into account? Maybe. Is there widespread agreement on that code? I doubt it.
As a result, I reject this super sophisticated nuanced code, if it exists at all, as being in the realm of morality, whereas simplistic values like "Thou shalt not kill" are. Thus, when someone is killed by someone else it's immoral, period. Yet I readily admit that I don't think I would hesitate to kill someone who was going to substantially harm my daughters. You can say, "well, it's okay to kill in that circumstance," but when it becomes "Thou shalt not kill except when this, that, and a million other things that aren't universally agreed upon," then I reject that formulation as having anything to do with morality. In other words, to me, my action of killing to save my daughters is indeed immoral, but I would absolutely do it anyway (I think).
One reason I think it's still immoral to kill even in defense of one's family is that I'm pretty sure I would feel overwhelming guilt for having done so. If it wasn't immoral, why would I feel guilty?
Applying some of the above to "Thou shalt not steal," I still think it immoral to take from those who won't give voluntarily, period. Whether it's a group of bandits or a government, I still think it's wrong. BUT, I'm gonna do it anyway, because civilization itself requires it and my daughters' well being requires civilization.
Bret,
---
That is all that stops all people from taking everything I have anyway, isn't it? I mean, you may (see below) decide not to take from me, but do you think without the police (or some equivalent) and some sort of justice system, that nobody would choose to take from me (except also to the extent I defend myself)?
---
I will reverse your rationale. I may not want to take from you, but if almost everyone out there wanted to take from you, the police and 'some sort of justice system' would hardly be able to stop them.
Well, you may see government as just that: the canalized will to take from people in well ordered ways, in order to avoid the chaos of everyone taking from everyone in pervasive ways.
No need to mention morals, right? Except the means by which the citizens in functional societies come up with an agreement on following and pursuing such order is more related to morals than brute force.
And to understand how moral plays out to people, the worst approach you can take, IMHO, is the one you did. Not only for the excellent reason Skipper mentioned -- an axiomatic application of moral principles is fated to failure within the limitations shown by Godel -- but also because that's NOT how most people out there, in the real world, operate either.
Going back to the motivation of your post, I guess you were basically trying to defend your support of Trump and his policies by deflecting accusations of immorality, by showing that your rhetorical opponent was equally immoral anyway. Were I the arbiter, I would say it was a low punch, and invalidate it.
[Bret:] Again, it [immorality] has to do with A directing B to take from C and give to D. Is taxation theft? Not to me, but it does have some things in common with it, primarily forcefully taking from the unwilling.
This is exactly where you are placing more weigh on the "morality" than it can bear here, because you have provided no framework upon which to hang the word.
I think it could be easily argued that taking can produce a better outcome — for everyone — than not taking. How is that less moral than not taking?
You compound your difficult here:
Lastly, if it's immoral for a private group, however large, to do something (like take from those unwilling to give), then I don't see how it magically becomes moral when a bigger (or possibly smaller) group that's assigned the name "government" does it.
So vigilante retribution is on the same moral plane as our justice system?
If the bandits rob folks but then give their stolen proceeds (except for their "take" which politicians get as well) to the poor, is that suddenly moral? To me, it certainly is NOT.
Then you must explain why Robin Hood is viewed far more favorably than, say, the Cosa Nostra.
This is the problem with not having a transcendental moral authority. Everybody gets to pick and choose what's moral to the point that nothing is inherently moral or immoral.
That's too pomo.
Assume that, indeed, everyone gets to choose what's moral. That isn't the same as saying all conceptions of morality will yield identical results.
Clearly, they won't.
Just as varying transcendental moral authorities won't, either. Anyone care to argue the merits of the caste system?
Didn't think so.
So while the attractiveness for a persuasive transcendental moral authority is obvious, what we are left with is utilitarian morality: what works is moral.
Of the extant transcendental moralities, in my humble and undoubtedly unbiased opinion, Christianity happens to most embody what works.
Except for the places where it is absolutely blinkered.
Bret: This seems to be the week I'm on your case over definitions. There is another problem here. Actually two. The first is that, unless one buys into Skipper's brute utilitarianism, the word morality implies something that is ipso facto wrong, no matter how useful. Yes, I know how iconoclastic undergrads in Philosophy 101 love to "prove" nothing can be absolutely wrong through extreme examples (Is cannibalism to survive wrong for starving castaways?) and thus decide there are no moral absolutes and it's all relative, convenient for horny undergrads, but most of us face more mundane challenges. If taxation is morally wrong, then surely it's wrong at every level, including basic amounts to fund community defence, courts, lighthouse keepers. etc. At what point does it become immoral? Is 10% moral but 30% immoral? If I have an affair once a month with my comely assistant, am I more moral than the dog in the next office who is doing so every week? I don't think your protestation that we're all immoral gets you out of this.
The second problem is how close your thoughts are to today's American politics, especially for conservatives. Is "No Taxation without Representation" a moral call to arms? Is the Declaration of Independence akin to Moses's tablets? As a Canadian grateful for his Loyalist heritage, you will understand my reservations, but whatever, it seems you are getting dangerously close to the thinking of 19th century missionaries who were sure non-Christian souls were damned for eternity even if they had never heard the message and wouldn't have understood it if they had. Let me sum up the conundrum in one word: Iraq.
Skipper: Christianity happens to most embody what works.
Such a claim would have flabbergasted the Romans, offended the early Christians and left the Founder praying for His Father to give him better communications skills. Whatever it is and whatever it means, Christianity is not a recipe for temporal success and Christ was not a self=help guru.
[Peter:] The first is that, unless one buys into Skipper's brute utilitarianism, the word morality implies something that is ipso facto wrong, no matter how useful.
Isn't utilitarianism what most morality boils down to?
Obviously, that isn't always the case. Pro-life arguments certainly aren't utilitarian, for instance. But, perhaps due to limited imagination, I have a hard time thinking of anything viewed as moral that is manifestly not utilitarian. However, it is much easier to think of conflicting moral goals.
Certainly, there is a moral good in not taking. However, there is also a moral good in taking. I'll bet virtually everyone in modern societies (which aren't kleptocracies), even the ones paying the biggest tax bills, would find the latter morally preferable.
[Skipper:] Christianity happens to most embody what works.
[Peter:] Such a claim would have flabbergasted the Romans, offended the early Christians and left the Founder praying for His Father to give him better communications skills. Whatever it is and whatever it means, Christianity is not a recipe for temporal success and Christ was not a self=help guru.
Gasted flabbers, offense, communication skills and temporal success are beside the point.
Which is this: different moral codes produce different results, as they must if the differences are anything but trivial. With the evidence at hand, Judeo-Christian morality has produced better results.
If one is to make a choice between objective moralities, what other basis presents itself?
Post a Comment