We can understand the social system that mankind needs to embrace if it wishes to survive. It is pretty simple. But it is not intuitive. And it has two sides. Ignorance (not stupidity) gets in the way. People simply do not know, and before they know they have to care. Then the second side of the system presents limits, which never goes over well. Again, there is no free lunch, and, worse, eventually no lunch at all.
The social structure needs to be based on liberty, justice, and property. With liberty we are free to live our lives as we choose.
Justice gives us a society not structured to favor anyone, thus offering equality in opportunity and equality before the law. Property means the product of our labor belongs to us. In this system one is free to live his life any way he sees fit as long as he does not interfere with others doing the same. Government is responsible only to preserve liberty and justice. Perhaps they can run the parks. That is it. How simple can it get?Notice that we cannot consider our fundamental rights to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty, justice, and property work better. There are problems with Jefferson’s choice on our essential principles. For one, the term “life” is redundant, since liberty and happiness presume it. If it is not presumed, then who is supposed to be pursuing happiness and enjoying liberty? This would not be a list of inalienable rights but rather a death warrant. Also, justice is an essential component of a free system which Jefferson simply ignores. Perhaps having hundreds of slaves clouded his judgement on that issue. Finally, happiness can exclude liberty. Happiness is entirely subjective. One might find happiness in dependency, which then defeats liberty.
The French also had problems with their revolutionary rhetoric: “Libertè, egalitè, and fraternitè”. Liberty is cool, but “equality” tends to confuse opportunity with results. And “fraternity” is beyond bad. Fraternity meant altruism. People, under moral censure, were to cease interest in their own affairs and think only of others. Halleluiah! Every person a Saint! But we are not built that way, which is a good thing because liberty is impossible without responsibility a
nd responsibility is impossible without observation, involvement, and reflection in and of our own behavior. Not attending to ourselves we would be driving off cliffs to help people along the roads. And they would be jumping after us to help us help them help us. Tampering with the major driving force of human nature (the will to survive) is like taking out the engine of a car to see if it becomes more fuel efficient. Self-interest was denigrated and altruism idealized, with the whole effort reinforced by bayonets. Perhaps that is why the French had such trouble with their revolutions. To paraphrase Jefferson, “People who expect to replace I with Thee, expect was never was and never will be.”John Locke originally started this trinity with liberty, equality, and property. People got on him about property as they always do about those who have the foresight to accumulate capital. Perhaps coercion and corrupt money have given property a bad name, although some people actually earn their resources. The problem is that liberty loses its value if one is begging for food. Still, Jefferson changed property to happiness, which in addition to being subjective, fails to inspire.
Nevertheless, the necessary social system is clear. It has to be free-market individualism. Everything else voids liberty and equality. Society has had a long history of flirtations with this system--it is hardly new on the planet. After all, how hard is it to think that a person might manage his own life? But individualism never lasts. People always demand more and seek someone or something else to assume the responsibility component of liberty. Perhaps philosophy of mind can help us here. Not that we have learned so much in the last century about what mind is, but we know what it is not. It is not independent. We do not hover above ourselves in non-space, secure in conceptual Kevlar bubbles. We are simply ourselves, mind and body joined together in action, subject to cause and capable of purpose.
And natural cause will trump human purpose. We do not create anything. We rearrange things. One of those things is us. How do we push against cause when we ourselves are caused? We can sail about the world whereever we want, but it always requires energy and always is on H2O. We are not the captains of our ships. We go down with them. Perhaps that takes the fun out of liberty, justice, and property. Maybe we have work to do in this area. At some point in a teleological system we run up against final cause. Something has to bring everything into being. We play with that Something's equipment. We also are that Something's equipment. We might do well to accept what is offered. Protesting just keeps us out of the game. Finally, if there is no final cause then there is no meaning--unless we supply it ourselves. Even the Marines cannot do that. At that point our job becomes worse than impossible--faith ceases to exist.
I was being rhetorical about whether we might have work to do in the area of mind. Of course we do. And the first issue to concider is expectation. We cannot control cause, but we are entirely responsible for our expectations. Expecting too much ruins things by causing us to hold out for more, thus keeping us from involvement. We have leverage with our expectations since we create them. Work there might allow us to appreciate what we now ignore. Liberty, justice, and property is pretty good. We would be idiots to not revisit this from the perspective of existential limits.
We live in a world of relativity. Satisfaction is relative. It depends upon expectations. At age sixteen we hope to play basketball for Duke. At sixty we are happy just to play. It is not the absolute we receive that determines satisfaction. What matters is what we receive relative to our expectations. As a trivial example, if your car is promised on Tuesday and you do not get it until Thursday you are disturbed. If it is promised Friday but you get it Thursday you are happy. Same day, different expectations. We have leverage there; and we can generalize.
But then, will our mental capabilities be sufficient to meet our expectations?
No comments:
Post a Comment