|
December 26, 2003
Sick and ill-treated children?
Recently, Frederick Turner (via InstaPundit) reflected upon the difference between those whose goal is the good, and those whose goal is the right. Laws seem, as many philosophers have opined, to be based on one of two foundations: what is good, and what is right. Very roughly, the distinction can be found in the difference between our own two traditions, of Roman law, and English common law; further back, between the ancient Hebrew ritual law, and the code of Hammurabi. Legal experts will, I hope, forgive the many exceptions to these generalizations for their usefulness as an analytic tool of thought.Not only do I forgive the "many exceptions to these generalizations," I am so stunned by the sheer clarity of the author's thoughts that I would forgive a lot more than that. A topic like this cannot be discussed without generalizations -- the exceptions providing a collection of variables allowing further debate about the validity of the generalizations! Without generalizations, we'd have trouble seeing the forest from the trees. (For each tree is unique and different!) In this way, Turner looks at Roman, Christian, and Islamic Law through the general perspective of good versus right: Roman law, though again it was based upon a transcendent conception of the good, made many concessions to the low demands of commerce. It gave much authority over to local magnates, capos, and dons, so that in exchange for a local return to the patriarchal customs of the tribe, there would be a general concession to the legal supremacy of the Senate (and later, the Emperor). However, such laws did not provide for the increasing numbers of helpless indigents that are spawned by mercantile padrón systems everywhere.British imperialists were known for treating their subjects as children -- although in their defense it should be noted that the law they attempted to impose was the law of right and not the good. And ultimately, the British allowed the colonies to outgrow this colonial status in much the same way parents necessarily allow their children more and more freedom -- which goes hand in hand with responsibility! One of the chief worries in this blog has been over the growing tendency to treat American citizens as children -- moving us ever closer to a vast national kindergarten. By their very nature, children cannot be trusted to make intelligent and informed choices. Therefore, until they have learned and demonstrated maturity (and responsibility), it is necessary to tell them what to do. Children are not old enough to choose the good or the right. Their parents have to tell them. Like Frederick Turner, I worry incompatible schools of thinking -- and the primary problem may be a fundamental disagreement: ARE ADULTS CHILDREN? (The consequence being, of course, that if most adults are children, then they must be treated like children -- by an ill-defined force called AUTHORITY.) Speaking of the British Empire's erstwhile "children", the following observations about Islam (which Turner calls "the good") come from a writer from Karad, in Maharashtra, India: Muslims - Sick and Ill-treated ChildrenAt some early point in history, some leaders in some cultures decided that adults are like children (especially where it comes to vices like sex, drugs, and fun pursuits like rock'n'roll) and therefore must be told what to do. But because it is in their nature to break the rules, it was found that in practice the most effective rules are those said to emanate from God. Yet as culture advanced over the centuries, it was realized that goodness requires choice. Choice is not supposed to come from coercion. I have a friend who does not believe in religious morality of any kind, nor does he think morality should be imposed on anyone. However, he is strictly monogamous, and would never cheat on his wife. Thus, if we go by literal definitions of the words, he is morally conservative. But that is not what is meant by the term "moral conservative" in modern usage. "Moral conservatives" (at least as the term is popularly used) are people who believe in moral coercion, by government. Which means, ultimately, at gunpoint. I am of the opinion that this is neither moral nor conservative. And even if we discount the role of government, it could be argued that if someone is obeying what he believes to be God's law and refrains from sexual transgressions for fear of divine punishment, he by his own definition is less moral than a morally conservative atheist, because the latter has made a free choice without fear of punishment, and without any compulsion. When adults are treated as children, you get adult children. Adult children cannot handle responsibility, and cannot say "No" to temptation or vice. They need to be watched constantly by authorities, whose job is to pry into their subjects' lives to the greatest extent possible -- even preventing them access to places like topless bars, gay bars, X-rated theaters, casinos, or even cable television. Because, if the parental authorities turn their back for just a moment, unrestrained irresponsibility will start! When the cat's away, the mice will play! Of course, the authorities cannot be everywhere. Thus, events like stoning to death encourage group participation, and create a communitarian cult of violence. Likewise, Muslim men (at least, followers of Saudi Wahhabism) are encouraged to treat their wives as children. Allowing children authority over other children is an excellent way to maintain authority over children. The system becomes almost self-enforcing. Unless, of course, freedom sneaks in via things like rock'n'roll. Freedom corrupts the very tyrannical, imposed-from-above, "good"! I guess that means freedom is right. (I think it can heal the sick and ill-treated children too!) posted by Eric on 12.26.03 at 12:33 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/630 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sick and ill-treated children?:
» Good vs Right from The Daily Irrelevant
Laws seem, as many philosophers have opined, to be based on one of two foundations: what is good, and what is right. Very roughly, the distinction can be found in the difference between our own two traditions, of Roman law,... [Read More] Tracked on December 29, 2003 07:14 AM
Comments
Thank you for your thoughts, Dave. In England, actions in Equity originally took the form of petitioning the King (in the Chancery Court) for redress of unfair, harsh results which sometimes flowed from following the Common Law. That this happened at all shows the flexibility which tends to flow from "the right." As you say, the right can eventually become the good -- with mixed results. A harsh, literalistic result is often unfair, but then so is allowing a second bite at the apple (which equity lawsuits can accomplish). If carried too far, equity, like egalitarian thinking, can actually result in tyranny and chaos -- whether in the name of "social justice" or other such nonsense. The key to achieving justice seems to involve recognition that no system is perfect. But such recognition stands clearly in the way of "the good" -- because of the latter's emphasis on human perfectability, whether by social scientists, Marxist central planners, or humans divining God's intent. Eric Scheie · December 26, 2003 04:56 PM This is a really worthwhile topic because people generally do not recognize how these distinctions affect their outlook on behavior -- especially someone else's behavior! :} Lakoff's family metaphors explain some of these differences of emphasis (e.g. letter of the law -- the 'right' -- over the spirit of the law -- the good. I'll try to talk about that on CivicDialogues. In your comment you said, "The key to achieving justice seems to involve recognition that no system is perfect." You are quite right. Nor can one economic, political or any other human system be permanent and foolproof because part of human nature is the ability to figure out ways to cheat the system. The Federalist Papers make this point about government, for example. And, yes, human perfectability is impossible, too. We can never -- as a group -- rise above our nature. BUT WE MUST NOT STOP TRYING !! The reality we must embrace is living a healthy tension between how we try to achieve the good and what is considered 'right' at any given moment. Both are moving targets. Erasmus · December 26, 2003 10:36 PM Eric, you jump about here, starting with Turner's well-reasoned piece, then fretting that that American citizens are increasingly treated like children in their own country, then suggesting that "freedom" (whatever that is) will repair the errant Muslim. Typical piece of Hindu patronizing, that Indian article was, BTW. The common theme in your meditations appears to be the urge to identify a secular moral code--a task that's particularly urgent for gay people. I sympathize, having puzzled over this subject all my life. Isn't Frederick Turner a piece of work? I've met him a couple of times at poetry conferences. He's an accomplished poet, author of sci-fi epics (some in verse), and deep thinker on public issues. He used to be Newt Gingrich's brain trust, back when the future majority leader was devising his Contract with America. But Newt's fellow Republicans preferred a mess of Clinton pottage. Alan Sullivan · December 28, 2003 02:16 PM Actually, I think there already is a moral code which encompasses both secular and non-secular elements of society -- and that is, simply, the Golden Rule. Leave people alone as you would have them leave you alone! Butting into people's lives -- in the name God, in order to "help" them, because they are like children, or in order to build a better world -- is the very antithesis of morality. Yet for so many, it IS morality. I don't know how to reconcile these two very different views of morality and human nature. All too often, the "good" stands for butting in. The "right" is more inclined to leave people alone. Eric Scheie · December 28, 2003 06:06 PM I used to argue for the Golden Rule, Eric, but I'm no longer so sure of it. The Golden Rule assumes general good will. It does not equip us to deal with situations like that of pre-war Iraq. Alan Sullivan · December 29, 2003 12:07 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
These are just random thoughts: I haven't connected the dots in my head yet.
Ancient Israel was first ruled by a system of judges, rather than by kings. I don't know how it compared to English common law as a method of government, but the Israelites seemed dissatisfied enough with it to demand a king. Perhaps a right/good distinction can be made here?
I wonder too, if societies that start out with the right as the goal slide into having the good as the goal. Again, in English common law, the system ended up being so inflexible, enforcing the right having become the good in itself. The system of ecclesiastical courts, which survives in the law/equity split in American courts, attempts to enforce the right once more where the common law fails.
I think also, to borrow a page from Hayek, that organic, judge-made law tends to enforce the right, while legislation tends to enforce the good—and we're seeing the results nowadays!
Obviously, I need to think some more on this.