On freedom
To continue from earlier post, I think any discussion on freedom is essentially framed around two propositions, one the extent to which freedom can be restricted, and more importantly the rationale behind freedom.
Now using libertarianism as the reference point, as I pointed out (rather obviously) that libertarianism (or to be more precise mainstream libertarianism distinct from anarcho-libertarianism or similar crazy stuff) doesn't guarantee unrestricted personal freedom, but this is not inconsistent because the restriction is only to extent of imposing institution(s) whose only mandate is (or should be) to safeguard the rights. Hence even libertarianism aims to optimize the extent of freedom.
Now comes the rationale, one point of view is of right theorists, essentially holding freedom as an end in itself, or to put in other words, starting point of any discourse. Now this sort of axiomatic position is bound to pass unchallenged in polite society, considering how any disputation to notion of inviolability of freedom will be considered scandalous. Being impolite I hold this position to be more or less worthless, and entirely based on contemporary sentimentalism.
The second position, of consequentalism, holds more appeal for me. Briefly, this position supports freedom as the means with overall social prosperity as the end. However in this case to determine the extent of freedom is a very difficult question and determined by prevailing definition of social good, and also broadly by the social conditions. The nature of rights have a profound effect on civilization.
Now personally speaking, I have yet to arrive at any concrete conclusion of my own. Meanwhile the premises (or the guidelines) that I favour for my orientation are
1. Any constructive work, any innovation is only possible out of a man's own volition. If I were to elaborate, explanation would be something like this.
2. People, generally speaking, are idiots. Therefore it follows a vast majority will use freedom to do something idiotic, with some able to accomplish acts stupendously idiotic in nature.
3. State, by virtue of having monopoly on use of force, is inherently evil.
6 comments:
Gaurav,
One need not necessarily have a dichotomy between libertarianism and consequentialism. How about this - one starts with various axioms as the basis of morality, individual freedom is one of them, overall prosperity is another, lack of coercion (which is slightly different from maximum individual freedom) another, equality of opportunity another and so on. Then, one tries to prioritise among the constituents of this basic set of axiomatic premises, which are also goals. One lets the interaction between these axioms wrt various issues decide one's position on the political, economic and social spectrum.
The result, I believe, would be a position I can only call libertarian-centrist. It is interesting to note that inspite of having argued fiercely, and sometimes, stupidly, that day over at Sandeep's blog, you and I fall on the same side of libertarian fundamentalism. We differ not just on free speech (where I support more freedom than you do), but from what I can make out, on gun-control too, with my gut instinct supporting regulation, and thus less freedom.
To summarise, it is not my proposition that policy making be blind to reality - that would be suicide. It is however, my position, that morality (which should guide policy making on the more fundamental issues) can be independent of reality. The logical conclusion of a society that has no notion of morality as different from reality is social Darwinist anarchy.
Ritwik,
Where exactly I have claimed that there neccessarily need be a dichotomy between libertarianism and consequentialism ?
By the way what exactly is the problem with social Darwinist anarchy.
Gaurav,
You show disdain for libertarianism here - " Being impolite I hold this position to be more or less worthless, and entirely based on contemporary sentimentalism.
". You show approval for consequentialism here - "The second position, of consequentalism, holds more appeal for me. "
Thus, at the very least, you differentiate, and pass normative judgements. Now, you clearly demarcate the context of freedom in the two philosophies - "Now comes the rationale, one point of view is of right theorists, essentially holding freedom as an end in itself, or to put in other words, starting point of any discourse" is contrasted with "Briefly, this position supports freedom as the means with overall social prosperity as the end". Thus, you clearly establish the dichotomy between role of freedom in the two philosphies - in one it is the starting premise, or the end, in the other it is only a means. I'm surprised that after writing all that you still found it necessary to pose that question to me.
As for a social darwinist anarchy, my problem is that I do not want to live in a society where there are no external forces stopping me from going and killing anyone who is, say, a potential competitor in romance. A brutally real, guided by instinct, reaction would be exactly that - go eliminate your competitors if you can. This still manfests itself in various forms, there's no need for me to specify that.
I do not know WHY I feel this way - it is even possible that evolution has programmed many human beings to find direct elimination and anarchy morally and mentally repugnant, maybe I'm one of those. For example, why do you feel that overall social prosperity is a correct goal?
What I do know is this - in the process of evolution, human beings represent a strange case because we have become conscious of evolution. For the first time, evolution has become conscious of itself. Thus, through our mental make-ups, through our societal set-ups, we may just be able to influence our biological and physical realities, unknowingly of course. To put it in different words, morality need not originate directly from reality. Morality can just as easily form the basis on which we shape reality.
Lastly, aren't you getting a little too influenced by Recursive Hypocrisy these days?
Ritwik,
1. But I am differentiating between "Right Theorist" & "Consequantalist".
As far as I understand both are valid positions within overall libertarianism (I also provided the link to Wikipedia article, giving again).
2. "A brutally real, guided by instinct, reaction would be exactly that - go eliminate your competitors if you can."
I don't think instincts work that way. I have written about it at other places
3. I think it is entirely possible to be a misanthrope without being influenced by Nilu, I can only speculate that Misanthropy has a genetic advantage.
Gaurav,
1. Have read all those wikipedia articles. As far as I understand, even if libertarians often argue along consequentialist lines, they consider freedom as an axiom. The 'it is better for society' is a layer on top of that, that is added so that they have common debating grounds with others who may not believe in their axioms.
2. Instincts and evolution are not settled issues. So I'll reserve my judgements on that. I am largely in agreement with the Neo-darwinist version of evolution, which agrees that cooperation may just be as imperative for evolution as competition. Let me rephrase what I said then - an absolutely nature influenced society will have SOME (some doesn't mean low or less than 50% here, just contrasted with ALL) cases where direct elimination is the brutally real reaction. The presence of humans who find this morally repugnant has led to a society where such cases are fewer in number than they would have been otherwise.
3. I did not refer to the misanthropy. I referred to the 'appeals', the 'dear xyz' letters, and the 'what is so wrong with a socially darwinist society' question that you posed to me. The content of that question is irrelevant, it is this style of posing a question as a counter-argument and trying to evaluate if the other person even clearly knows the fundamental basis of his/her opinions that reminded me of Nilu.
p.s : Do you really need that captcha? It comes twice everytime and is a real pain.
Ritwik,
1. My understanding is that social good is instrinsic to libertarian consequentalist.
2. Is it possible to have a society not absolutely influenced by nature. Even repugnance is social conditioning of already present & strong genetic factors
3. I have always been like that, I guess it is possible to have people with similar tastes.
PS. I am sorry but for me either it is word verification or getting spammed. Regret for inconvenience.
Post a Comment