Liberty

[Edward Campbell]

There are several threads on the go, here on Army.ca, that deal with moral issues. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is a front page article from today’s National Post which might (I hope, but a hope tempered by experience) lead to a calm discussion of the issue:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=641267

Tracking society's incremental erosion
Politician's 'moral neutrality' comment signals the end of blamelessness

Craig Offman
National Post

Published: Wednesday, July 09, 2008

When British Tory leader David Cameron issued his stunning criticism of the obese, the poor and the politically correct this week, he invoked an academic phrase that has become the bete noir of conservative philosophy.

In a speech that launched a byelection campaign, he warned that "moral neutrality" was eroding the country's foundation. "We prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong," he told a downtrodden Glasgow riding. "These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more."

Proponents of this concept believe that politicians and lawmakers should not determine what makes or detracts from a morally worthy way of life. Instead they reference a central tenet of 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill, what is called the "harm principle": citizens can do whatever they want, provided they don't injure others.

Critics increasingly worry, however, that as benign as a little "lifestyle liberalism" might seem, it can collectively take a huge toll on society. "Some vices can seem harmless," said Princeton jurisprudence professor Robert George. "A guy hiring a prostitute, taking heroin or looking at porn online doesn't seem like a big deal, but on a widespread level that's a big deal."

They also debunk the notion of moral neutrality. "It's impossible," Prof. George said.

On an individual level, people make moral decisions every day and might not even know it. "For example, we know that it is deeply unworthy for people to live a short, unhappy life of drug addiction," Prof. George said. "We can appreciate that human life has dignity and value."

They can also make value judgments about the difference between a grave error and a tiny trespass, recognizing that rape is a more harmful crime than, say, name calling.

As Prof. George and other detractors say, culture and law are inextricably entwined: The law might follow the lead of cultural movement and vice versa. A law, no matter how neutral it might seem, informs behaviour.

One example he gave was no-fault divorce, a legal phenomenon that began in the 1970s. Advocates insisted that dissolving marriages without having to show wrongdoing would save taxpayers and parents a lot of money in legal proceedings, and alleviate the suffering of children. It was not framed as an attack on the institution of marriage.

But Prof. George said it had consequences that underscored the law's lack of neutrality: Divorce rates shot up, children were left to shuttle between several households and, as a whole, it helped undermine the institution to the point where traditionalist defenders of the man-woman union feel they are on the defensive and "starter marriages" are the norm.

Though experts deliberate the "moral neutrality" phrase's philosophical origins, it emerged as a powerful force in the 1960s with such leading liberal thinkers as the late John Rawls of Harvard and Ronald Dworkin, who has held prestigious posts at Yale and Oxford.

Professors such as McGill's Douglas Farrow say that three decades later, moral neutrality remains the prevailing wisdom of his students, who believe there is no such things as absolute values. Tolerance, he said, remains the all-important buzzword, but in his view it just leads to more intolerance. "We have certainly trained a generation that is morally neutral," said the religious studies professor.

"A student that comes to McGill will be very loath to say that any behaviour is morally evil. They might express their own revulsion, but if you ask them if this is morally wrong, if it is an evil act, they tell you that they don't want to judge."

He said the notion of tolerance has created more intolerance because people are afraid to judge, and the more reticent they are, the more issues are buried--and perhaps more likely to rear their head unexpectedly.

"The more recent business about the [Dr. Henry] Morgentaler controversy is indicative that we've been stuffing all these judgments under the carpet," he said, adding that Canadians usually don't have obvious outlets for making moral deliberations.

Another flashpoint issue, he said, is the controversy over human rights commissions, a free-speech debate in which some say the mores of tolerance are valued over the validity of free expression.

He predicts that with its own problems of relativism and senseless violence, Canada could soon face its own David Cameron moment. "There, the trigger apparently is yet another mindless stabbing. In Toronto, we've had similar things: mindless shootings. Hopefully we can learn a little bit from what's going on elsewhere."

First: John Stuart Mill was a man of his times. He was also a devout utilitarian. He broadly accepted both the comfort of the highly conventional religious life of his society (what Carey calls orthodoxy) and the notions of e.g. atheists that we, humans, are just another mammalian sub-species and that, at the instant of our deaths, everything is over – for us. He was, however, quite prepared to accept that other people could have other ideas and he was equally prepared to tolerate those ideas and to demand that other Christians – the mainstream 150ish years ago in England – should also tolerate others’ beliefs, wrong though one might be certain those beliefs would be.

Tolerance is NOT a virtue - despite what 95% of the chattering classes say. They are wrong. Tolerance is, most simply, a polite acceptance of actions or conduct or beliefs one knows are wrong or, at least, not quite right. It is good manners; that’s all. Mill preached tolerance for all private things – actions and beliefs that did not interfere with the domains of others. I think it was Oliver Wendell Homes who, discussing rights and privacy, said: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." That’s a not bad definition of what Mill insisted we need to tolerate. Neither the state nor society should intrude, he said, into he truly private space of the individual.

We need to consider privacy, too. Your space is not necessarily private if it includes a spouse, or child or parent. They, too, are sovereign individuals and while you might be pater famlias that does not mean that others have any fewer rights than you. Rank and status give one responsibilities, not privileges.

We, at least most of us who have been soldiers for any length of time, probably have a few fixed moral principles. I would guess they include, inter alia:

• Loyalty – a least to comrades in arms in our ships’ companies, units and squadrons. Some of us may have some levels of loyalty to and pride in something larger – a regiment or service, the Canadian Forces, perhaps even the country;

• Service above self – some combination of loyalty coupled with excellent training and discipline, the absolute sine qua non of professional solders, allows some of us to do extraordinary things in the most dangerous of circumstances in order to ‘get the job done;’ and

• Pride – we know that we are doing things right and we trust that our leaders have sent us of to do the right thing. We go about our business with our heads held high.

Prof. Douglas Farrow’s students might well say that we ought not to hold such principles but that’s the difference between them and us. 

But the fact that we might hold some firm principles does not mean that we can or should even want to impose them on others. Mill was right, those McGill students, and everyone else has a right to believe as they wish – so long as their beliefs (and/or actions) do not intrude into my private space.

Some modern conservatives argue that this tolerance does intrude on to the moral fabric of the nation. They may have a point but they are suggesting that the nation, the collective, and its ‘needs’ must be, somehow, superior to the individual. No true liberal can accept that. We may, now and again – and for decidedly limited periods, allow collective (usually security) needs to take some precedence but this must be both very rare and very temporary or we risk all our liberties. We must well remember Benjamin Franklin’s admonition about liberty vs. security. He was right, too.

“We” – any collective – are wrong and dangerous when we try to impose “our” values and standards on others. The highest ‘standard’ is respect for the individual rights of all others – especially of those we despise.


Edit: typo

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thank you Edward.