Elsewhere, I've discussed my problems with J.S. Mill's views regarding the interaction between the state and personal liberty. I'd like to use this first post to crystallize these thoughts and to articulate a positive vision.
As I have a habit both in written and oral debate of being tangential and nonspecific, I'd like to limit this treatment only to my problems with J.S. Mill's "harm principle."
Let's get to some definitions. Mill's harm principle is stated thus:
"...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
I feel that this principle is based on a faulty premise: that adults who have the ability and the will to act in their own self-interest will do so.
Take note that I do not at this time seek to squabble over the definition of self-interest. I argue that individuals will knowingly take actions against their own self-interest.
These actions can be taken for good or bad ends. We call the good ones, 'altruism'. We call the bad ones, 'self-destruction'. Some quick examples of altruism: the impulse of a soldier to fall on a grenade to save the lives of her comrades, or the donation of time and money to a charity that feeds children a continent away.
Some people would argue that altruism doesn't exist, that what you give (your life, time, or money) is equaled by what you gain (the knowledge and pleasure that you've done something noble or meaningful). Those people are poopheads.
What about actions taken against ones' own self-interest that do not benefit society either? One example would be hard drug use. People know that it is not in their self-interest to do drugs- they are very destructive to one's health and wellbeing- yet they do them anyway. Despair, depression, alcoholism, self-abuse are other examples.
Let's resist another false argument similar to the altruism-denial above: that people feel that the initial benefit of their actions outweigh or equal the later incredibly harsh consequences. Self-mutilation can be a form of taking control when an individual feels they have none, but I've always felt Dostoevsky's notion of a "laceration" in The Brothers Karamazov was as accurate an explanation as any.
Acting against ones' own self-interest and to the detriment of society is, ultimately, a product of sin. People are not the rational actors Mill supposes them to be: they are morally flawed. In the words of St. Paul, "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."
At the risk of getting a little unfocused, I'd like to take issue with the following idea, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Hopefully, this will help me articulate a positive vision, rather than nitpick another's.
This isn't true, of course. Some scriptural evidence, again from Paul: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."
So, argument one: Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is NOT sovereign, but rather subject to God.
Here comes argument two: The government is a legitimate tool of God's Will.
For the scriptural evidence of this, I again turn to Paul:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
If you think I'm overloading on St. Paul today, I can direct you to the old testament prophets Jonah and Daniel. The Babylonian captivity is another example of God working through states. Jesus also says that we should, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
I include this quote from Christ as a defense against what I imagine will be a popular criticism: this is the ultimate form of state oppression! How do we functionally decide which claims over our bodies the government can rightfully preside over, and which ones are our own choice? As this is the central question that "On Liberty" purports to answer, it would seem that we haven't made much progress at all.
Jesus' answer gives a good directive: the government cannot have authority over one's religious duty to God. Stated succinctly elsewhere:
"Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.'
Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'"
So there's that. If you follow some thinkers of the Enlightenment (our Founding Fathers among them), the government can morally be rebelled against when they have violated "inalienable rights" that their Creator has given them. These rights are an extension of those religious ones shown above. In most cases, they are legitimate extensions, though I'm stopping short of saying that God made our Constitution or that the LORD wants you to have an AK-47. According to our Declaration of Independence, "that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We've even gone so far as to codify these rights in our Bill of Rights. Note that none of them include the right to commit suicide, nor the right to self-destructive behavior.
In fact, a responsible government must prohibit these activities, if it is to "promote the general welfare". It's a matter of public health.
I have more to say later on Government and vaccinations, seatbelts, the environment, and other stuff, but I'll leave my criticism here. Pretty long for a first post.
4 comments:
I disagree with your interpretation of Mill. The “Harm Principle” does not require the assumption that “everyone always acts in their self-interest.” In Utilitarianism, Mill argues that it is often the case that people ought to act against their self-interest if, in doing so, they maximize the general happiness. “Ought” implies “can”; that is, because Mill argues that people ought to act altruistically, we can assume that he believes they can act altruistically. The central aim of his Libertarianism is, given that people can act against their self-interest, when is it appropriate to intervene? I think this interpretation is fairer and consistent with the rest of his philosophy. Having established that, I think it is reasonable to assume(as economists do) that, for the most part, people do act in accordance with their own self-interest.
I do not think you have fully justified your position that people act toward “self-destructive” ends. This is not to say that people do not act with the knowledge that their behavior will bring about negative consequences, but that, in the vast majority of cases, the ends are believed to be positive. Consider your example of hard drug use. Now, I would never be so naïve as to deny that users know that negative consequences will result from using, but the user believes that the pleasure brought about will be worth those negative consequences. Conversely, you should not be so naïve as to assume that a user thinks to himself “The reason I want shoot up heroin is because all of the pain and misery it will bring to my life.” Your other examples of “self-destructive” ends are despair, depression, alcoholism, and self-abuse. The examples of despair and depression are either poor or unclear. In the case of alcoholism, I believe it is analogous to the case of hard drug use. The case of self-mutilation is quite different. But it does not support your case; most would argue that it refutes it.
You go on to say that acting against one’s self-interest and to the moral detriment of society is a product of sin(a tautology, but true). Then you say that people are not the “rational” actors Mill supposes them to be. As I have argued, this is false; Mill does not assume this. Mill understands that people are morally flawed. If this were not true, his ethics would be descriptive, not normative. It would be redundant to tell people what they should do if everyone always acted rightly. Again, the purpose of his undertaking is to answer the question, “given that people may act against their self-interest, when is it appropriate to intervene?”
I think in the beginning of your scriptural quotations, you’re actually making Mill’s point. In truth, we are fallible. You may think you understand what is best for me, and I may think I understand what is best for you, and so forth. But we are all FALLIBLE. Mill believes, if we allow for a “marketplace of ideas”, and these ideas are discussed and argued over repeatedly over a long period of time, then the rational ideas will eventually win out. And we’ve seen this with the progress we’ve made in ethics, science, politics, religion, etc. If certain ideas are oppressed, and say, for example, Lutheranism is accepted as objectively true(i.e., it answers all ethical and metaphysical questions correctly), then we cannot make progress.
You know, David, Hitler thought he knew what was best for you…;)
Godspeed buddy.
Also, I know that you do not believe it is always appropriate to intervene when people act against their self-interest. You do not believe that all sins should be punishable by law. So, if you would like to present an alternative criterion to the “Harm Principle,” I’d be happy to critique it.
The early biblical quote, as you correctly interpret, speaks to human fallibility. But it also goes considerably farther than I think you give it credit.
Not only does every person have the ability to sin, every single man in the history of this planet HAS sinned, with the exception of one guy.
I do not buy this argument:
A. Humans are fallible
B. Humans disagree on moral beliefs
C. This moral disagreement cannot be settled responsibly by humans, due to A
D. Therefore, legislation or state enforcement of some moral problems will cause more harm than good
It reminds me of some people who do not believe in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I submit that science doesn't have an answer to every observed phenomena, but we're really, really, REALLY sure about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
In the same way, I submit that as a fallible human, I have the ability (perhaps even the destiny) to incorrectly interpret divine revelation. But I'm really, really, REALLY sure that 'Thou Shalt not Kill' means that it is against God's Will to take your own life.
I'm all for this ethical, scientific, political, and religious progress stuff. I consider us morally superior to those infanticide-committing, pederast-supporting civilizations of yesteryear.
1) What is best interest?Who determines it? How is it determined? I understand that you do not wish to squabble over the definition right now but I think this is a critical to determining the practical feasibility if not the logical.
2) Are we not then compelled to intervene in other counties who violate unalienable rights? If men are not sovereign what makes countries so?
3) What would you say to someone who rejects the bible and renounces any responsibility to god? This person might be a hedonist and believe that heroine and physical pleasure is the supreme good. They choose to do heroine. (I composed my response before reading Andy's response and he touches upon this point but I still feel it is important)
4) I perceive that the Inquisition and every other form of religious oppression can be justified using your model. One can simply appeal a generic supreme good and justify any action in support of it. However, every man a similar syllogism is responsible for what we both can agree have been some of histories worst atrocities.
In either case I can claim that I am really, really, really, REALLY sure that you are mistaken.
Post a Comment