Well, this post has been a long time coming, and unfortunately it probably won't be an extremely complete post. Actually, it's more of a primer, and hopefully a conversation starter. Bits and pieces of my political philosophy have shown up all over the place, primarily in previous discussions about whether or not the government should "legislate" "morals" (separate quotes for those words). Anyway, here is a quick attempt at laying out my political philosophy. As of today. Sometimes my thinking on these things changes. Note the name of the blog.
The government is a body that derives it's power from the people (nothing revolutionary here; at least not in this day in age). As such, in order to determine the role of the government, we need to figure out a few things about the people. If we're trying to figure out people, it seems we've got ourselves a little question about human nature. That being the case, it's easy to see why much of my political philosophy is actual an extension of my thinking about human nature. Primarily relevant to this conversation is the idea that people are, by their nature, social beings.
The whole "state of nature" idea of Hobbes, et. al. is, at best, a terribly unrealistic fiction with only marginal philosophical utility. People are not simply individuals who enter into society because it's a useful arrangement for protecting their life (and/or rights). Rather, people are born into society. The natural consequence of our existing is that we are social beings. It is impossible to be born into a state of nature, and nearly as impossible to leave society to enter a state of nature. Any political philosophy based on the state of nature/social contract theory should be largely rejected.
If people are by their nature social beings, then government is essentially a natural outgrowth of our social functions. Government is the mind that directs our social existence. Just as we as individuals order our lives to achieve desired ends, so too does our government order our society to achieve desired ends. The desired end of government, it follows quite naturally, is the same as the desired end of any individual: the good life.
The idea that government exists for the purpose of making sure everyone plays nice seems to be almost all-pervasive. This is a philosophy that comes from the whole "state of nature" fiction. The people who hold this view allow for some essential "road building" though to be honest I question how that fits into the social contract/play nice theory. I want to throw this philosophy out and suggest that even without government people would, for the most part, play nice. History tends to bear this out. Because we are social beings, we function socially just fine, with or without a specific government telling us to get along. So if we get along just fine, what is the role of government?
As Aristotle put it: "The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together." The living together part is taken care of by human nature. Government then is for "noble actions" or those things which enable the good life.
Now, there are plenty of debates we can have about what specific attributes constitute the good life, and plenty of debates about the best way to achieve that good life. But I don't think it is too controversial to suggest that the good life encompasses the entirety of human experience: physical and mental health, economic and financial prosperity, moral virtue, education, family life, entertainment, cultural sophistication, and so on and so forth. All of these are thus proper subjects for government, let's say, "promotion." Because in order to promote the good life the government doesn't necessarily need to be making things legal or illegal (though certainly that will be the natural response to some areas), but rather they need to be engaged in enabling citizens to achieve the good life. So, for example, road building is a necessary and proper function of government (as is collecting the taxes to build those roads) because those roads enable people in their attempt for the good life.
Not only does the government serve as a tool for helping individuals achieve the good life by their own individual volition, the government is also concerned with creating a sort of social "the good life". The form this takes is that the government exists to create good citizens. A good citizen is an individual who facilitates the functioning of the government. Roads are a perfect example here as well. By creating roads the government makes it easier for people to come together and operate the government.
Well, I guess that's a pretty decent, quick, summary of my political philosophy. People are naturally social beings, and government is the natural outgrowth of that social nature. People orient themselves towards achieving the good life, and the natural orientation of government is also towards the good life. Government should properly function to 1. Help individuals achieve the good life in their own lives and 2. Create individuals who facilitate the proper functioning of government.
If you could make your own money, and then give it to everybody,
Would you do it?
If knew all the answers, and could give it to the masses,
Would you do it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm curious how this applies to business. If Person A develops a new product or service that the general public much enjoys (or dare I say, "needs"?), the sales of said product or service will generate enough money for Person A to live his or her version of "the good life".
Now, say that Person A develops a method of selling/providing this service that makes him or her much more money and therefore theoretically turns "the good life" into "the better life", but has the unfortunate side effect of hurting others—either directly or indirectly. This could be via pollution or some sort of manipulative, monopolistic practices.
Having read/discussed your thoughts on corporate morality and responsibility on more occasions than I care to count, I know that you would have some strong feelings about the behavior exhibited by Person A. How does the government outlined in this post handle such a situation? No matter what, someone's "the good life" is going to be affected. I'd like to see how you apply your philosophy to this narrowly selected and carefully worded hypothetical.
Joel - A fair question, and I think there's two primary responses. First, by "the good life" I probably mean something more like "the virtuous life". I would argue that happiness and virtue necessarily go hand in hand, and so in your example the non-virtuous Person A isn't really living the good life if they're causing harm to others. They might be living the prosperous life, but not the good life. Now, I have trouble believing that Person A could truly be happy without also being virtuous, but we'll just say that Person A's prosperity has caused him great personal happiness (let's assume money can buy you love). I would argue that Person A, despite his happiness, still isn't really living the good life because a part of the good life is achieving through virtuous means. Heck, it's right there in the identifier: the good life. That doesn't just mean "the happy life" - otherwise that's the phrase we'd use. No, there is a moral standard to the good life, and Person A isn't living up to it. It makes perfect sense when you think about it; take Person A who harms others through his achievement of prosperity, and Person B who achieves the same prosperity but does it without harming others. Who would we prefer to be? The answer is quite obvious, and from that we can see that "the good life" is about much, much more than prosperity and happiness.
The second point is that the government should be free to regulate the business if it's harming others. Heck, I'd say it should be able to regulate the business even if it isn't harming others! (For example, taxes). Yes, these would be restrictions on Person A's prosperity, which would probably seem to have some ultimate adverse effect on his living of the good life (prosperity is an aspect of that good life), but it's really more proper to view government stepping in as a "correction" than as a "restriction". Because the good life doesn't involve harming others. That's simply not good. So if the government were to say something like "stop polluting" they'd really just be helping to point Person A in the true direction of the good life.
I'd also point out here that if the government says "we need to step in and help out other individuals who can't get to the good life because of Person A" that's really just those other individuals stepping up and saying it themselves (government being by the people and all...). The regulation of Person A's business is a natural function of others striving for the good life, and as such it is the natural function of the government.
In short, should the government be able to regulate business in any way it wants? Oh heck yes.
And let no one ever question my liberal credentials again.
so does this extend to protecting people from overlaps in finding the good life? what if two people want the same thing and cannot get it or what if two people want conflicting things and one needs to loose? does the government then step in?
and do you feel that the bad things done in the world (guns, gangs, drugs, rape, murder, theft, ect) are due to the fact that we do not live the "good life" or the government is keeping us from it? how does pain and violence fit in to this?
i am actually suprised at how optimistic you are. but its nice. Hobbes does tend to frighten people...
Hobbes is a joke. Plus, really, on the same topic as human beings as social by nature, all of the social contract theorists leave out families, and actually, women and children in general. They tend to focus on men. Even just adding family dynamics and the fact that human offspring are not like other offspring, in that they are much more dependent, and for longer, than other species (and there is the whole bonding thing) and it puts a whole new perspective on things.
meh. shouldn't this be on your other blog that i don't read?
Post a Comment