"A truly free man creates his own morality"
I've been reading through Law Legislation and Liberty by F.A. Hayek, and the basic theme of the first chapter is how people really don't have enough information to centrally plan society. Existing institutions embody the knowledge of the past and should be seriously considered before being rejected by reformers. Institutions evolve, just like organisms and thus can be seen as fit, even if they don't make complete sense.
I don't know how much I buy the argument yet, although to be fair, I am only 25 pages in so far. Hayek is a genius, but a horrible writer. I honestly feel a bit sorry for those who purchased "Road to Serfdom" because of Glenn Beck. They're in for a rude surprise, compared to Hayek's more eloquent followers. Anyway, Hayek is awesome.
I came across a few pages that really got me thinking. Hayek talks about moral reasoning and rules of the past. While I agree that one can not remake society from whole cloth, and there is some wisdom in the institutions of the past, somehow I find the argument a bit unsettling when applied to moral philosophy. I have spent a tremendous amount of time thinking about morality, and moral rules. A quote from Keynes resonated with me quite a bit:
"We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the right to judge every individual case on its own merits, and the wisdom, experience and self-control to do so successfully. This was a very important part of our faith, violently and aggressively held. We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdoms. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term immoralists. We recognized no moral obligation upon us, no inner sanction to conform or obey. Before heaven we claimed to be our own judge in our own case."
I suppose I, like Keynes, consider myself above other's morality. I consider their preferences, but not their rules. I realize that laws represent constraints on my behavior to the extent that they are enforced, but feel no compunction breaking them should I feel they are unjust or even inconvenient at one time or another. That is not to say I am immoral. I simply consider my own moral thought to be superior to those making laws, and to the vast majority of humanity. I think that less than a tenth of one percent of people has thought about morality as much as I do. I do not reject the wisdom of the past. I think that there are many who came before me that were my superior in terms of moral thought and action. I read their words and consider them. I internalize their patterns of thought into my own thoughts. I err, as do all humans. I suppose Aristotle was right in that the meaning of life is to ponder the meaning of life. No human has ever completely discovered it, save perhaps a few. I guess I just discount other's beliefs based on how much I trust their judgement. So it should be with all knowledge.
There are a few good reasons I think, for not tying myself too closely to the mast of prior moral thought and law. Laws flow freely from the mind of the unjust man. He must only think "what rule benefits me now?" and thereby gain insight into the desired law. A just man creates only the laws that can reasonably be expected to benefit all humans. Such is a far harder task, and is more rarely accomplished. It is far easier to come up with the right action in a local setting, one step at a time.
There was an anime awhile back that was quite good called "Samurai X" or "Rurouni Kenshin" in the Japanese. It's set at the beginning of the Meji era, the end of monarchy and the beginning of the modernization period of Japan. The main character is talking about trying to remake society, and why he quit the army and won't get involved in the new government. He says that he can't bring justice to the whole world, only to the end of his sword. Outside that circle is chaos and evil, but inside it order and good. I really liked that image. As human beings, we can not end evil in the world. It will be with us until Judgement Day, but we can bring justice to those around ourselves. It's slow and it's frustrating and there are setbacks. There are billions of people, and so much evil that it's very hard to accept one's own limitations in helping them. When you are young, you dream of saving the world, but if it were that easy, it would be done by now. One day at a time, one person at a time, do what you can. Overreach is far more deadly than is commonly thought. Failed utopias are the greatest threat to humanity. I suppose that's a bit of what Hayek was getting at. He didn't necessarily want people not to follow their own moral compass. Perhaps he just wanted people to accept their limitations and only try to improve the world a little at a time in ways they could understand. Bring justice to the end of your sword and let the rest of the world work itself out.
I don't know how much I buy the argument yet, although to be fair, I am only 25 pages in so far. Hayek is a genius, but a horrible writer. I honestly feel a bit sorry for those who purchased "Road to Serfdom" because of Glenn Beck. They're in for a rude surprise, compared to Hayek's more eloquent followers. Anyway, Hayek is awesome.
I came across a few pages that really got me thinking. Hayek talks about moral reasoning and rules of the past. While I agree that one can not remake society from whole cloth, and there is some wisdom in the institutions of the past, somehow I find the argument a bit unsettling when applied to moral philosophy. I have spent a tremendous amount of time thinking about morality, and moral rules. A quote from Keynes resonated with me quite a bit:
"We entirely repudiated a personal liability on us to obey general rules. We claimed the right to judge every individual case on its own merits, and the wisdom, experience and self-control to do so successfully. This was a very important part of our faith, violently and aggressively held. We repudiated entirely customary morals, conventions and traditional wisdoms. We were, that is to say, in the strict sense of the term immoralists. We recognized no moral obligation upon us, no inner sanction to conform or obey. Before heaven we claimed to be our own judge in our own case."
I suppose I, like Keynes, consider myself above other's morality. I consider their preferences, but not their rules. I realize that laws represent constraints on my behavior to the extent that they are enforced, but feel no compunction breaking them should I feel they are unjust or even inconvenient at one time or another. That is not to say I am immoral. I simply consider my own moral thought to be superior to those making laws, and to the vast majority of humanity. I think that less than a tenth of one percent of people has thought about morality as much as I do. I do not reject the wisdom of the past. I think that there are many who came before me that were my superior in terms of moral thought and action. I read their words and consider them. I internalize their patterns of thought into my own thoughts. I err, as do all humans. I suppose Aristotle was right in that the meaning of life is to ponder the meaning of life. No human has ever completely discovered it, save perhaps a few. I guess I just discount other's beliefs based on how much I trust their judgement. So it should be with all knowledge.
There are a few good reasons I think, for not tying myself too closely to the mast of prior moral thought and law. Laws flow freely from the mind of the unjust man. He must only think "what rule benefits me now?" and thereby gain insight into the desired law. A just man creates only the laws that can reasonably be expected to benefit all humans. Such is a far harder task, and is more rarely accomplished. It is far easier to come up with the right action in a local setting, one step at a time.
There was an anime awhile back that was quite good called "Samurai X" or "Rurouni Kenshin" in the Japanese. It's set at the beginning of the Meji era, the end of monarchy and the beginning of the modernization period of Japan. The main character is talking about trying to remake society, and why he quit the army and won't get involved in the new government. He says that he can't bring justice to the whole world, only to the end of his sword. Outside that circle is chaos and evil, but inside it order and good. I really liked that image. As human beings, we can not end evil in the world. It will be with us until Judgement Day, but we can bring justice to those around ourselves. It's slow and it's frustrating and there are setbacks. There are billions of people, and so much evil that it's very hard to accept one's own limitations in helping them. When you are young, you dream of saving the world, but if it were that easy, it would be done by now. One day at a time, one person at a time, do what you can. Overreach is far more deadly than is commonly thought. Failed utopias are the greatest threat to humanity. I suppose that's a bit of what Hayek was getting at. He didn't necessarily want people not to follow their own moral compass. Perhaps he just wanted people to accept their limitations and only try to improve the world a little at a time in ways they could understand. Bring justice to the end of your sword and let the rest of the world work itself out.