September 08, 2003
Enjelani Overflow 1
[The following is a continuation of a conversation that started in this post over at The Last Embassy. The conversation has gotten too unwildy to be contained in a simple post, so I'm migrating some of it over here.]
A response to beefeater's claim that non-interference/market principles are "natural" and are not "human-made".
beefeater - "[Market Principles] are not some arbitrary human-made rules: They are the embodiment of non-interference." Huh? Not human made? You've backed yourself into an impossible corner on this one.
Market Principles are not like Natural Laws which are discovered and not created. They are human conventions. How can you tell the difference? You can't violate a Natural Law, no matter how hard you try. The Law of Grvity, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are involiable. There is no moral imperative to follow them. There is no "should" about them.
Human rules are quite different. They are able to be broken (which is why they are established in the first place). They may (or may not) carry a moral imperative. And if a rule does carry a moral imperative, then it must be human made (or alternately God Given...but somehow I'm doubting that you are going to say that Market Principles are God Given).
You have clearly made non-interference/market principles into a moral obligation. I therefore do not see how you can claim that they are "natural" and deny that they are "human-made rules".
In your comment posted at 07 09 2003 10:27 PM PST, you place non-intereference in a list of other Goals of The System that include: (legal paternalism), (legal moralism), (utilitarianism), and (communism). Assuming that socialism belongs on that list too and given that you have already called socialism an "arbitrary human-made rule system", I can only conclude that all of these possible Goals are also "arbitrary human-made rule systems", including your precious non-interference.
I think that you are going to have to concede this particular point. Any rejoinders?
- wink [September 8, 2003 01:33 AM]beefeater says:
All right, I'll concede the point. One can never violate the law of gravity, but one can violate non-interference at any time by punching one's neighbor in the eye. In that sense, freedom is no more "natural" than slavery, for both can be violated by humans. But it's still fundamentally more... something. I'll keep looking for a good way to articulate the distinction.
In the meantime, I must fall back on what I wrote on the main thread: Non-interference is an end in itself. Why? It goes back to Kant's Principle of Ends: Each person is an end in himself, not a means to someone else's ends. Why should we accept Kant's Principle of Ends? Not because it is "natural" (you didn't let me get away with that one). Rather, in part because societies not based on non-interference have failed, in recent history at least; in part because it is easier to imagine a peaceful equilibrium in which no one messes with anyone else, than it is to imagine an equilibrium in which everyone messes with everyone else; but most importantly, I suppose, because it agrees with our moral intuition. At least it agrees with mine.
jim says:
Well said, beefeater. But why so absolutist?
This has been my whole problem with the discussion so far. Why must it be a choice between non-interference and socialism? What I'm asking for, in creating a better society, are efforts to re-work the shades of gray that exist in every society.
says:
That's why I didn't rest my case solely on the first reason ("societies not based on non-interference have failed"). It would have left the door open a crack: maybe "just a teeny little bit" of interference could be OK? a teeny bit of slavery could be OK? The argument from moral intuition allows no wiggle room.
wink says:
I think that for most people, moral intuition takes them more down the path of "fairness" (with maybe some compassion thrown in), than it does the path of "non-interference".
Moral intutions can span a pretty wide range.
beefeater says:
Indeed they can, and I'm not sure what to do about it. If Kant's Principle of Ends does not follow from moral intuition, it is difficult to find an alternate grounds for it. Kant himself claims his Principle without justification, as a "categorical imperative" (the way one might claim that God exists). Libertarian political philosopher Robert Nozick also takes the Principle as given.
I can think of several independent logical constructions to support the Principle of Ends, but they are all limited in various ways. The utility rationale ("societies not based on non-interference have failed") leaves the door ajar to "moderate" interference, as already noted. Besides, some slave societies have in fact been successful, such as Greece and Rome. The co-possibility argument ("If Joe meddles in Fred's affairs, their relationship becomes asymmetric") is shaky because a democracy where a majority consistently interferes with a minority may seem symmetric. The contract argument ("Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone in return") fails if some people enjoy regulating others so much they are willing to be regulated themselves once in a while. Only the moral intuition gives the Principle of Ends a solid foundation.