Compassion and libertarians


A side discussion from one of my groups
Archived to keep track of it. Originally published at BendanMyers.Net. I don't have permission to quote anyone but me, so that is all you'll see here. But since it's me I'm quoting, I get the Technopagan Green.

_____

As one of those pesky libertarians, I'm going to raise my head and speak here.

The issue is not that libertarians don't care about other people.  The issue is that libertarians resent being told who and what  to care about.   From our perspective, it's about choice.  Some people don't deserve concern.

How dare I say that!

In my political blog I recently used the example of someone with a broken leg.  We should all care about them and do what we can to help, right?  Unless they got that broken leg by kicking their child.  That is a different situation and it is not covered by some idea of collective responsibility.

Libertarians value choice, they don't want to have the judgement made for them.  Yes it can seem harsh and uncaring, but it isn't.  It's about individual choice.

_____

Ah ha.  Let me roll up my metaphorical sleeves here.

The simple answer is that moral responsibility is always a personal choice.  You can't compel virtue or it ceases to be virtue.

Am I morally obligated to give someone aid because they are across the street?  Proximity would seem to be the defining factor, doesn't it?  Do I have the same obligation if that someone is in the next town?  How about if they were in the next state?  Or the next nation?

At that point we may be talking about armed invasion and occupation because someone was unjustly injured.

Let's not forget that word unjust.  Who decides what is and is not unjust?  Is it some central committee?  Is it public sentiment?  Is it because the injured party happens to be one faith?

How much help am I obligated to give?  Is that decided by a legislature and distributed by a local government agency?  What if that government decides that "charity" can only be distributed by those churches licensed and regulated by the state?  What if I think that they are wasting the money?  What if the government agency claims that it needs more?

Can I walk away if I think the institutions are failing?  Could I work "outside the system" to do what I think is necessary?

I maintain that these choices really belong to the individual.  I think you'll find that most small "L" libertarians would agree.  Since I take my compassion and responsibility seriously, I'm not willing to surrender those choices to others. 

I say that the worthy choices are never the easy ones.  I say that individual choice ALWAYS matters more than the institutional.

The choice of who to help, when to help, and even if to help belongs the individual, not the society that spawned him.  Without that choice, there is no virtue.

Without that choice, there is no lasting change.

_____

… Small "L" libertarians, those of us not affiliated with the party, might surprise you.  It seems a little much to expect people who pride themselves on individual action to follow institutional expectations.

I've said elsewhere that Pagans and libertarians have certain parallels. There's not necessarily any formal membership or hierarchy, those in the group just share common ideas, perspectives, and concerns.  Pagans and libertarians are about equally hard to organize, and for about the same reasons.
…
Well, the questions I listed aren't exactly rhetorical.  Those questions would help me decide if help was merited.  Merited, not needed.

Granted, I gave a generalization, but I chose it deliberately.  On an international scale, interventionism has helped shape world history in the 20th Century and unfortunately, the 21st as well.

On a smaller scale, the idea of intervention by force has a solid grip on Western society, particularly American society.  It's justified putting children on medication for "behavioral problems" without their parent's knowledge, the condemnation of alternative sexualities, and the suppression of free choice.

I hardly need mention it's effects on minority religions.

Am I required to give help?  No.  Nor should I be.  If I am required to give help, it ceases to be compassion and charity and becomes extortion.  If I choose to help, that is individual.  If I am required to help, that's institutional.  Institution compassion, to borrow a phrase from the late Douglas Adams, is Somebody Else's Problem.  Everyone just "blips" over it without noticing the side effects or what's required to make it work.

Will I help?  That's a completely different question, but a much more important one.
…
MacIntrye?  He's a bit pedantic and muddled for my taste.  Not to mention depressing to read.  Aristotle joined his virtues with actions and choice.  It's a good start.  Most importantly for our purposes here though, Aristotle made a distinction between the public and the wise.  It wasn't the community that defined "good." 

I'm helping a young friend with a piece on existentialism and I pointed her in the direction of Maslow.  Your mention of Aristotle made me wonder what he might think of the idea of self-actualization.  Ah well, something to ponder when I have more time.

I think you misunderstand.  It's not that personal choice trumps compassion, it's that compassion starts with personal choice.  And yes, sometimes that means that it's more compassionate and more responsible to say "no."  Need alone isn't sufficient to get help. Yes, causality is important, but we should know more.

True story.  Someone once asked for my help to get groceries and keep their utilities on.  But the day before they had just bought designer shoes for their three kids.

Do certain values transcend personal choice?  There are very few values that aren't culturally based.  Good heartedness?  I'd argue that depended on how insulated a culture is.  It's easy to be generous and honorable with your own, but the same behavior towards The Other takes a fairly tolerant society.

Speaking of cultural choices, what about those who choose not to conform?  Those individuals who choose to break society's norms?  Obviously this applies in our case, but offhand I can't think of a field of human endeavor that has not benefited from the occasional rule-breaking.  To cite another Neo-ism, "Progress never comes from satisfaction."

Making choices means there are going to be "right" choices and "wrong" choices.  Take away the wrong choices and you lessen the virtue of the right choices.  Unlike Confucius, I don't think that "right" is defined by an externality.  I think that "right" is defined by effectiveness.  If I booze it up often, I'm less able to handle what life throws at me.  If I treat someone decently, I'm more likely to receive decent treatment myself.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - May 3, 2010 at 02:02 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2010 All Rights Reserved