At the moment, I won’t get into any great detail, but I’ve been mulling over what my guiding philosophy (philosophies?) are when thinking about politics. I think I’ve mused before about the battle in my mind between libertarianism and utilitarianism. In my younger days, I had a Rorschach like commitment to liberty (“never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon”). I’m clearly no longer in that place.
It’s becoming clear to me that, more than anything else, I value liberty for its utility. In other words, letting people do as they will, by and large, leads to more happiness. But, where it doesn’t, I’m coming to believe maybe we shouldn’t make a fetish of liberty, valuing it for its own sake in those instances where, on the whole, it leads to more misery than happiness.
So, am I just a geek? Do other people spend time thinking of such things. What kind of guiding philosophies do you folks have?
“Have a good time, all the time.”
-Mick Shrimpton
It’s funny you should bring up political theory, I just finished Justice as Fairness by John Rawls. While there is much to like in Rawls’ theory, I find it difficult to believe that in today’s political climate, any agreement, even on the basic fairness of the social structure, is possible.
I have a few problems with libertarianism, especially in its current manifestation as a political party. It seems that modern libertarians want to run to John Locke for a philosophical justification of their embrace of natural rights to liberty and especially property. These true blue (or green I guess) laissez faire libertarians have apotheosized their right to as much property as they can accumulate. However, Locke provides no justification for the unlimited right to property. The Lockean Proviso in his 2nd Treatise specifically denies the right to unlimited property.
This habit of omitting what is intellectually inconvenient causes me to question the seriousness of their political convictions. I see it as nothing more than an attempt to justify an unhealthy level of greed.
Craig, Shrimpton’s quote was: “As long as there’s sex and drugs, I can do without the rock ‘n’ roll.”
It was Viv Savage who said, “Have a good time, all the time. That’s my philosophy Marty.” :-)
Damn! Schooled by Doug on Spinal Tap.
Yikes. Make that schooled by Mike. I need to get more sleep at night.
Personally, I think once you accept the premise that giving up a measure of liberty to ensure a measure of security (i.e. the social contract), then it is simply a matter of degree.
In that regard, utility is an acceptable measure by which to determine the degree of liberty forfeited. The next level is how and on what population is utility measured? Do you go all-out hive mentality and use a societal measure of utility where the benefit of many justify the mandated sacrifice of the few? Do you prioritize personal utility over and above all?
I tend to think that we tilt toward individual liberty as long as it doesn’t put undue negative pressure on societal measures. Though the example may be tenuous, the idea that parties to a contract must each have consideration and benefit of the bargain illustrates some base idea that purely one sided utility should be avoided.
Similarly, we refuse to enforce contracts that have their basis in an illegal activity. Our brand of capitalism is one that encourages individual incentive as long as you don’t violate some level of societal trust or well being. Consumer protection statutes and product regulation illustrate this.
Just kind of free wheeling here, so not sure how coherent this is, but I do think we sometimes expect different economic standards than political ones. For example, I think most Americans are fine with the idea that we submit to a regulated system of searches and seizures in exchange for competent law enforcement. When it comes to our economy, however, I think a greater number of us migrate to extremes, either advocating a total laissez faire position or a total position of equal opportunity. I don’t think either is particularly healthy for the system because on the extremes we lose that standard of utility. At the extremes ideological conformity rules, and rarely do I ever see a like back to WHY ideological conformity is better than some other position.