How do you determine what is the right thing to do?
We make decisions every day, some of them more important than others, and some more difficult than others. We don’t all make decisions the same way, and we often disagree on what is the right thing to do. I would like to ask you to think for just a second about how you decide what the right thing to do is.
Most decisions, especially tough ones, involve weighing the various factors that are involved, and making a value judgment about which is the most important. Sometimes your own individual priorities may be in conflict with each other.
One key factor we consider is simply “what is best for me?” Which choice would bring me the most benefit? In the case of simple everyday decisions this may be the only factor. Do you want chocolate ice cream or do you want vanilla? The best choice here may just be the one that brings you the most personal happiness.
Similarly, many decisions that you make will affect you financially, and one part of intelligent decision making on a personal level is to make choices that will maximize your financial gain. There is nothing wrong with this, and we all consider what investments will be best for our savings, or which job will produce the most income. There are of course other factors to consider, but personal gain is almost always one.
Another consideration when deciding the best course of action is risk. Some choices are riskier than others. In the case of investments we have to balance risk with potential reward, and generally speaking higher risks provide higher rewards, but sometimes the risk becomes reality and it turns out badly. We all have different thresholds for how much risk we will tolerate.
But where did we learn that taking that which does not belong to us is wrong? We first learned it from our parents. We learned the same thing in school and in church. We discover that taking things that do not belong to you has been made illegal and that if you do it the police will catch you and you will be punished. We read philosophers, who tell us WHY stealing is wrong. We observe the negative effects of taking that which does not belong to you in our own life and our own experiences.
Eventually, “not stealing” becomes part of our moral code. We know it is wrong, and we know why, and we have seen it in our own lives and can clearly articulate why we do not take other people’s things. And then, like countless generations before us, we teach that same simple truth to our children. Stealing is wrong.
Before we go any further, I would like for you to consider under what circumstances you would “compromise” on the notion that “stealing is wrong”?
Stealing is only one small example of a fairly universal moral principle. Another simple concept that has been simply stated is “Thou shalt not kill”. Murder is wrong. The vast majority of us have never killed anyone, and we have never been killed ourselves, and we probably have never seen anyone killed, but we know killing is wrong.
Each of us inherently knows that life is sacred. Our parents and teachers and pastors reinforce the idea, and our society has made killing illegal. Philosophers have explained why taking another human life is wrong.
Occasionally we hear stories of some demented person who tortures small animals to death, and we are appalled. If someone abuses a dog or cat it is a crime and they can be arrested and punished. On the other hand, we stop by at McDonald’s for a quarter pound of beef that we all understand used to be a cow. We also are aware that every day dogs and cats are killed all over the country in shelters that don’t have enough room for all of the abandoned pets.
We know killing is wrong, but we see it every day on our television, whether in the form of a murder across town or a war halfway around the world. We want it to stop, but we are powerless to do anything about it.
We know killing is wrong, but we also know that if a deranged killer enters our house intent on doing us harm we have an obligation to use force to defend our family and our lives. And when Genghis Khan comes charging toward you with his men and horses you will either use force to defend yourself or you will end up dead with your village burned. We have a moral obligation to defend ourselves from thieves and murderers and that may include the use of deadly force.
Under what circumstances would you be willing to compromise on the idea that killing is wrong?
When deciding ethical questions, many take a pragmatic approach. The right thing to do for them is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Sometimes that gets turned around to be “the least harm to the fewest number”. If a program or an idea produces a lot of good for a lot of people and the negative effects of the idea are small enough, then the idea is a good one.
The bombs that the US dropped on Japan ended the War, and therefore prevented the bloodshed that would have occurred in a protracted ground war. We had to kill some innocent civilians, but it did end the war and stop the bloodshed. “The least harm to the fewest number”
Sometimes when facing a tough moral dilemma we consult our books of Wisdom. We consult the Bible or the Torah. We read Aristotle and the Federalist Papers. We cite the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This is appropriate, as each of us is only on the planet for a relatively short time, and we cannot develop our core beliefs from scratch every generation. People have been writing down wisdom for thousands of years, and we would be foolish not to take advantage of it.
It is interesting to note that most of the wisdom of mankind is in agreement on most moral questions. Whether the Code of Hammurabi or the Maxims of Ptahotep or the Five Classics of Confucius, there are lots of sources of wisdom about how humans can best organize their societies and avoid troubles. The Bible is more than a religious book; much of it is devoted to “common sense” notions of how humans should behave to one another.
But even our oldest books of wisdom contain contradictions, and when human beings interpret those books of wisdom they often reach different conclusions. Franklin Graham and Pope Francis and Joel Osteen all read from the same book but they are not necessarily on the same page. We can read the wisdom of the Federalists but we must balance it with the wisdom of the anti-Federalists. The words of the Constitution seem pretty clear but those charged with its interpretation seem to split evenly on what they mean.
Sometimes we put our trust in other people to decide what is right. Maybe we are not familiar with all that Bible stuff but we trust our pastor. Maybe we don’t understand all that legal stuff but we trust the police and judges to have it right. Maybe we don’t know what the best military strategy is, but we trust our generals.
At what point would you stop trusting your leaders? At what point would you question the wisdom written in the Great Books?
Sometimes we just trust tradition and all of the things put in place by those who came before us as simply “settled”. If our ancestors thought it was a good idea, who are we to question it? If previous generations thought this was how we should do things, then that is how we should do things. But then from time to time we look at the way our society operates and we shake our heads and marvel at our own stupidity.
At what point would you stand up and say that the way we are doing things is wrong, and has to change?
Sometimes we just decide what is right or wrong by “majority rule”. We do not all believe the same things. We do not always interpret history or our great documents the same. And sometimes society makes decisions by voting, and letting the majority decide. Regardless of your point of view we can all agree that sometimes the majority gets it wrong.
At what point would you stand up and say that the majority is wrong?
If your children were starving would you steal food to feed them? Would it still be morally wrong? Do conditions change morality?
“No man has any natural authority over his fellow men”.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The question we started with was, “how do you determine what is the right thing to do?” The same question can and should be applied to elected officials. How should they decide what is the right thing to do? As Rousseau points out, no man has any natural authority over any other man. John Locke struggled with the idea of consent, and how it is that government derives legitimate authority.
Recently I commented on a social media post about being a Minarchist in response to a question about taxation. Libertarians keep throwing around the phrase “Taxation is Theft”, and the question was in regard to that. Stephan Kinsella took me to task, asking me to stop sending my goons to take money from him at the point of a gun. He seemed angry about it.
I don’t disagree with Rousseau or Kinsella. They are correct; no man has any natural authority over any other man. I am a free man, and so are you. No piece of paper or election results can force me to consent to a government against my will. And taking money from someone without their consent is stealing. I cannot and do not disagree.
Locke and Jefferson spoke of tacit consent. If you drive on the roads and call the police and vote then (the theory goes) you have consented to the government and taxing you is not theft. Mr. Kinsella is an Intellectual Property attorney, and so presumably he spends his days petitioning the State (the one he despises and does not consent to) for special protections for his clients.
One can be a free man and still acknowledge that “the Mafia runs the docks”. You can defy them, but if you don’t pay the protection money they will break your kneecaps. Paying them the money does not mean you think it is right, it just means that you realize which path maximizes your happiness and minimizes your sadness.
Genghis Khan did not ask for, or care about, anyone’s consent. Sometimes, things are decided by the simple concept that “Might makes Right”. If you are going to oppose Genghis Khan it will be with weapons, and not words. If you are to oppose Hitler it will be with tanks and bullets, and not appeasement. Sometimes, you have to stand up to the British monarch and declare your independence, and that will require bloodshed.
Other times, it is not an external threat but an internal conflict that must be resolved. The Civil War was fought over slavery but also over the idea that free men should be able to govern their own affairs as they see fit. Slavery is abhorrent, as it deprives an individual of his Liberty. In order to fight against this barbaric practice Mr. Lincoln was willing to end over 600,000 lives, many of them innocent lives. The practical, pragmatic cost for sticking up for the individual liberty of one group of humans was a staggering loss of life and liberty as well as the absolute barbarism of things like Sherman’s march.
In World War two the losses to America were less than in our Civil War but the loss of life worldwide was much worse. The wholesale slaughter of Jews and the conquest of Europe was an atrocity that had to be confronted by men who love freedom, but the cost was staggering.
How do we decide what is the right thing to do? There are lots of important questions being considered at present that are not as simple as they appear.
· The President this week reacted to images of babies who were the victims of chemical weapons and reacted with an air strike on Syria.
· The US Senate changed its rules to allow Supreme Court Justices to be confirmed with a simple majority.
· The Missouri House of Representatives voted to approve a new Prescription Drug Monitoring Database.
· The House Freedom Caucus is in talks with the administration about what kind of compromises they can make on a new Health Care Plan to replace Obamacare.
· Congress and the Administration face a debt ceiling crisis as they work to reform the tax code and produce a Budget.
In the mornings I try to catch CNBC and this week I heard Jim Cramer whining about the news. Jim is an advocate for the stock market. He is in favor of that which makes the markets go higher and he opposes anything that would make the market go down. He is interested in helping people make money off of the markets. As a result he tends to favor things that would help the economy, but that is secondary. He also would probably like for the government to be fiscally responsible, but that comes in third.
Chuck Schumer is interested in the success of the Democratic Party. He makes decisions that he feels will be in the best interests of his party. I am sure he also would like to see a healthy economy and fiscal responsibility, but his main role is to look out for the interests of his party.
Missouri’s House of Representatives is concerned about their image. They want to do what the people want so that they can get re-elected. Opioid abuse is a significant problem and people want the problem to be addressed. Even though PDMP’s have not shown a record of success in other states they don’t want to be the only state without one. Their polling says that people want them to pass it, so they did. I am sure they are also interested in privacy and actually helping people get off drugs, but their main concern is re-election.
The Republicans in Congress want to show the American people that they can govern effectively. They need some “wins” in terms of legislation to accomplish that. What they are interested in is passing a bill. For that they are going to need to get their coalition to come together and compromise. They also need to get the economy “going” so that they can be re-elected. They need Tax Reform and an Infrastructure Bill to get keep the markets up and to keep Jim Cramer off their back. I am sure they are concerned about the debt, but that is not their focus.
President Trump was faced with pictures of dying children flashing across TV sets all over America. He clearly felt compassion, and a need to act. He also knew that his image as the Leader of the Free World was important not just to Americans but to leaders around the world. The president had to respond with a show of strength or he would risk losing his image as a strong and decisive leader. I am sure he is concerned about the Constitution and the risk involved and the possible entanglement that could occur, but he could not have those images flashing across TV sets without responding.
Mr. Kinsella doubtless did not consent to any of the above, but his tax dollars were used to buy the Tomahawk missiles than we shot into Syria. I do not consent to having my personal medical information in a database set up by government. Justin Amash did not give his consent for the government to run health care. Our grandchildren have not consented to the debt we are handing them. Thomas Jefferson did not agree with slavery, but it was a reality that he could not change.
Our religions and philosophies teach us that choices have consequences, and that bad behavior should be punished and good behavior should be rewarded. A good parent or teacher or pastor will teach about consequences in a mature and loving way. They will teach us to see the patterns in life, and how to make good decisions that result in good consequences, rather than giving us a set of rules to follow. They will value us as free human beings, and will let us learn right from wrong naturally.
What is legitimate authority, and how is it established? Certainly, when human beings come together voluntarily enter into a contract, the terms of such contract can be binding on the members and provide a form of “legitimate authority” which was agreed to. But contracts are only binding on those who agree to them.
Every one of us is appalled at the images of babies after a chemical attack. It is murder, and murder is wrong. Every one of us feels compassion for people with addictions that they cannot overcome. We all feel concern for those with severe medical conditions who cannot afford treatment. But our emotion does not give us legitimate authority over others. Neither does being part of a majority.
I believe in the idea of government because I think human beings in society need rules to live by. I believe government exists to enforce the natural laws that exist among men; namely the right to our life, liberty, and property. Without such rules we will be subject to “might makes right”, and Genghis or the Mafia will make those decisions without regard to our natural rights. I believe in government because I don’t think anyone should be allowed to sell heroin to a 5-year old. I believe in due process, whether in a dispute between two neighbors or in a dispute between two nations.
I envision a world where government is a voluntary option, where people can buy a “license” to use the roads and police and fire protection if they so choose. It could be a package deal to include military defense and the right to vote, and people could “opt out” but would have to build their own roads. That is nothing but a fantasy; a dream world. To insist upon such a world becoming reality is to ignore reality itself.
I would love a voluntary world where the United States did not have to launch missiles into Syria or deal with North Korea but that is not the world we live in. I wish I did not have to hear of the seemingly endless series of violent criminal acts in North St. Louis or South Chicago, but they are the sad reality.
Someone committed a heinous act by using chemical weapons against babies. I want them to suffer negative consequences for that. I want those committing crimes against other people in our inner cities to face consequences. I think using heroin and abusing opioids and not buying insurance and running up a bunch of debt are stupid things to do, and bad decisions should come with consequences.
I am not sure how to make the right decision every time. Some of these decisions are very complex. But I do know some of the wrong ways. We should not make decisions based on our emotions at the time. We should not make decisions based on what is good for our political party or career. Public officials should not make decisions based on their own self-interests. We should not focus on pleasing the advocates for special groups or interests. We should not make decisions that please the majority but violate the rights of individuals.
Our leaders need to support truth and the speaking of truth; they should be honest. Our leaders need to clearly state the principles upon which they will make decisions and stick to them; they need to be consistent. Our leaders need to respect the idea that bad decisions result in bad consequences, and not try to eliminate those consequences by placing the burden for them on people who made good decisions.
Nothing we do today can bind future generations to honor our wishes, and we are not bound to follow the wishes of those who came before us. Every human being is born into a specific reality, and we have no control over the nature of the reality we are born into. You may have been born a medieval serf or an orphan in Aleppo. You may have been born to a wealthy US businessman. You cannot change the reality but you can decide how you will respond to it.
I was extremely fortunate to have been born in the country founded by Washington and Jefferson, and not the one being run by Assad. But I am also a citizen of the world, and there are over 7 billion of us. I see my fellow humans being gassed or beheaded and it makes me angry. I see them enslaved and impoverished and my heart breaks. I am not responsible for the reality but I am responsible for what I do or do not do in response.
Human nature has not changed a great deal over the centuries, but a couple of hundred years ago our founders declared their independence from kings and tyrants. They did not embrace a simple majority-rule democracy, but instead created a system that respected the individual more than any previous system of government. It’s not perfect, but it is a clear step forward in human history.
Our system puts limitations on power, and in so doing decreases the effectiveness of our leaders from that of a king who has no such restrictions. It makes our process cumbersome. Our checks and balances make it difficult to reach a consensus or take major actions quickly. But in so doing they protect against excesses and respect the rights of individuals to dissent.
If we are to move humanity forward to a better place, it cannot come at the expense of the individual. There have always been good kings and bad kings, so the pendulum swings back and forth depending on who takes the throne. When we rejected kings we created a Republic whose purpose was to “protect these rights” of life, liberty, and property of the individual.
Our precious Republic has swung back and forth as well, but we have steadily drifted toward a larger and more intrusive government and more and more debt as the majority has learned to vote itself goodies from the public treasury. We spy on Americans openly now, with absolutely no shame. Government lies to our face. Our due process is under attack.
How do we decide what is the right thing to do? We develop a set of core principles and we adhere to them. We get those core principles from our parents and teachers and pastors and we get them from growing and observing. We develop our core principles by reading great works of wisdom and learning about history. We get those core principles by debating and by quiet reflection.
Don’t compromise on your core principles. Not because of emotion. Not because of a survey. Not because of pressure from advocates. Not because of pressure from your party. Not because you want to get re-elected. Not to protect your image. Not to prove you are tough. Not because you are just tired of trying.
Years from now future generations will read a book about you. Let’s leave them a legacy of Integrity and Wisdom to read about.
No comments:
Post a Comment