"It Isn't Hurting Anyone"

The philosophy of moral relevancy is perhaps the crisis of our time. The whole theory is often summed up in the saying, "I can do whatever I want, as long as it isn't hurting anyone."

However, this maxim is wholly inadequate as a guide for making decisions. There are many different ideas about what hurts and what doesn't. Sure, most everyone would agree that physical and pecuniary harm are to be avoided. But, only restricting ourselves from physically abusing other people or their property would be to indulge in gross moral mediocrity. Most American's are people of faith who seek after the character strengths of wisdom, courage, kindness, fairness, temperance, and transcendence among others. When the acts of others improperly hinder us from seeking after such values, we are harmed and offended in ways that are ultimately more profound than any physical harm to our bodies, autonomy, or prosperity. For those of us who faithfully seek after God, we know that sin is the greatest and only lasting tragedy of life.

The main problem I have with those who espouse the view that they can do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else is that they shortsightedly estimate the harm and offense that their actions have on others.

Secondarily, I think it is just callous to allow others to hurt themselves without at least teaching and inviting them to follow another path. To hold that it is none of our business whether others are hurting themselves seems to reflect the undergirding egoism expressed by those living by this philosophy. I am not advocating infringing on others' autonomy needlessly. But, I do think that we are our brother's keeper.

Unfortunately, this amoral axiom is evermore present and influential in American society. It is a fad. But, unlike clothing, if you don't live by this moral relativism, you are labeled as intolerant, bigoted, and close-minded. However, they don't realize that tolerance is not the absence of disapproval, it has to do with the respect and esteem we afford others regardless of our differences. This social pressure to approve of everyone's values diminishes individually held values, even those which have been ubiquitous throughout time and geography. And, this pressure starts influencing our people at continually younger ages.

For example, check this song out by Ben Harper:

My choice is what I choose to do

and if I'm causing no harm
it shouldn't bother you
your choice is who you choose to be
and if your causin' no harm
then you're alright with me.

By the way, he was talking about smoking marijuana. This song's lyrics highlight another problem with this selfish lifestyle: it strips us of our duty to self, others, and God to rightly justify our choices or repent of them. In the song, he doesn't even try to assert reasons smoking pot should be valued, allowed, or acceptable. He doesn't feel he has to. The implication of the "it isn't hurting anyone" theory is that one can do whatever he or she wants and it doesn't matter if it is good or moral at all. By his wholly inadequate estimation, he isn't hurting anyone so it is ok. But, he is hurting people through his influence. I'd like Mr. Harper to explain to the mother of a son whose addiction to pot came as a partial result of looking up to singers like himself.

The late former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pointed out clearly the effect others' influence can have on us and on society in our quest to become virtuous people:

It is not easy, for instance, to be virtuous when all about you there are those who scoff at virtue.

It is not easy to be honest when all about you there are those who are interested only in making “a fast buck.”
It is not always easy to be temperate when all about you there are those who scoff at sobriety.
It is not easy to be industrious when all about you there are those who do not believe in the value of work.
It is not easy to be a man of integrity when all about you there are those who will forsake principle for expediency.

Nonetheless, we strive to become better and to become better together. We should be weary of approving of other's poor behavior in the name of tolerance. There are most certainly some values that are, I believe, deontologically true and, whether you believe the former assertion or not, are certainly ubiquitous throughout time, geography, and culture. Such character virtues are the bedrock of a strong, purposeful, and economically successful society. To accept poor character in others is to be satisfied with social decline and, eventually, a soft tyranny.

John Donne had a vision of reality when he wrote the following in his 17th Meditation, "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main... because [everyone is] involved in mankind." Our actions build our characters and the strength or weakness of our characters can effect those around us for better or for worse, often dramatically slow. Small and simple things can bring about great changes. When we act, we vote by our feet about what the standards of our nation should be.

Our society is focusing more and more on "me" rather than "we." Living by the saying, "I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is very selfish. Utilitarian philosophies at least determined conduct according to what would give the most happiness to the most people. This is just what gives me the most happiness regardless of other people. Those who espouse this view tend to all too easily reject the values of their community and their parents to do something easier, pleasurable, or more fun. They do it under the false pretense that it makes them happy and "isn't hurting anyone." They go against generations of wisdom who vote for the traditional values of society with their numerous headstones, and they do it on little more reason than curiosity, inertia, and lust. It is true that whole communities can be wrong about certain beliefs or values; but, only deliberate and altruistic motives should have any clout in dissident movements, not the listless whim of an individual "looking for himself" or looking for his next very temporary bout of pleasure.

Ayn Rand rightly noted that happiness may be a goal of ethics and our justifications for our behavior. But, happiness cannot be the standard. The whole point of morality is to determine a code of values that will best give a person the means to achieve joy. But, to say that it is best to value whatever will give you happiness is to say the best values are whatever you value. In so saying, one gives up entirely on the ethical responsibility to look outside himself and further into the future in evaluating the rightness of an act. One abdicates the duty to do not what is the easiest, but what is right.

Let us no more abdicate our duty to others with the empty refrain, "It isn't hurting anyone."

Our Common Morality

Freedom is surely one of the fundamental values of America. Even so, our freedom cannot be untrammelled; it must be delimited by corresponding rights held by other persons. A nation of true liberty does not give its citizens maximum freedom; it upholds a harmonious balance of people's most valued freedoms. Real liberty means expanding individual freedoms as much as possible without infringing on others' freedoms.

For example, we discourage people from driving drunk with criminal and tort law because it infringes on others' freedom from anxiety or injuries resulting from the high risks created by those choosing to drive while under the influence. We draw the line there. We cut the privilege to drive drunk because it infringes on others' more valuable freedoms. Likewise, we have, in the past, protected our freedom not only from dangers to our prosperity and health, but our moral sense of well being and serenity. We censure advertisements so we don't have to look at morally repugnant or persistently tempting images. Unfortunately, as moral relativism and nihilism take a more and more prominent position in the ideologies of Americans, freedom to do whatever they want, good or bad, becomes more important than freedom from moral corruption. Moral relativism throws this fragile balance of rights and privileges out of kilter.

Currently, American society suffers from a particular pattern of poor judgement that psychologists call the restraint bias. This cognitive bias describes people who tend to think that they can show restraint in the face of temptation better than they actually can. Socially damaging and morally negative behavior becomes habitual on a wider and wider scale as we fail to protect our freedoms from exposure to immoral and provocative behavior and portrayals. A lower moral caliber becomes the status quo. Media normalizes and condones corruption. Excess and indulgence are seen as a valid choice. Sophisticated rationalizations are conjured. And the self-perpetuating spiral persists. But, there is an end to the spiral. It either ends when moral courage wins out over moral mediocrity that disproportionately favors "freedom to" to "freedom from." Or, it ends when the moral bands that hold society together are loosened to such a degree that order and efficiency disappear.

Temperance and courage are falling by the wayside. Perhaps the time to focus primarily on defending human rights has past and our focus should turn to defending human obligations.

Alexis de Tocqueville is often cited as America's most acute observer and friendly critic. He attributed the success of American democracy to the common moral and religious values of the nation's citizenry. He is in good company.

John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”

James Madison put it eloquently, “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty and happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.”

Abraham Lincoln understood this principle as well: “The only assurance of our national safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.”

Benjamin Franklin echoed the sentiment when he said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

President Harry Truman said, "We talk a lot these days about freedom — freedom for the individual and freedom among nations. Freedom for the human soul is, indeed, the most important principle of our civilization. We must always remember, however, that the freedom we are talking about is freedom based upon moral principles."

How can we, of many, become one (e pluribus unum)? Where should we turn for morality? Private social institutions are the very best at providing the kinds of close-knit civil interactions that unify people in mind and purpose and teach character strengths and virtues. Family, church, book club, boy scouts, youth basketball, violin lessons, 4-H, Rotary International, country clubs, knitting groups, Homes for Humanity, etc. This is where the founders intended us to get our values and safety net... not from the government.

As government grows in role, spending, and size, the importance of private social institutions dwindles. These social institutions foster morality, citizenship, and service. Extended family and religious unities especially, but also youth programs, volunteer organizations, and community groups unite people literally and intellectually. Such local forms of association cultivate people's desires and capacity to take care of self and others. Good citizens seek to do good for its own sake, not because they are constrained by law.

As government expands in an attempt to paternalistically take care of our "needs" more and more, it undermines the democratic principle of authority being diversified to local organizations. Oversized government undermines true compassion and lessens people's incentives to unite in virtue building social institutions. Expansive government diminishes social capital and encourages moral mediocrity.

Taxation puts money to value judgments that should not be made by the government, but by social institutions. Income redistribution corrupts the generous giver and grateful receiver model of most major religious and other value systems and turns it into a giver that feels coerced and a receiver who feels entitled. There is not connection between the giver and receiver in income redistribution. There is no moral obligation by the receiver to be a thankful stewart; not gratification from seeing a gift blossom on the side of the giver. It is true, there are those who need and should be permitted to ask. But, no one is entitled to another's time, talents, good fortune, or money by virtue of poor life decisions or a disadvantageous birth.

Religion plays a tremendously important role in American democracy. Without a popular hope for a just God and a consequential afterlife, we necessarily have a cooperation problem. At my university, there is a sign that says, "Please stay off the grass, I am trying to grow." Yet, for the last week I have watched as time and time again students have walked right by the sign across the tender grass. Why don't they stop. Because they estimate that the value they receive in acting for themselves is greater than the social good which would come from abiding by the sign's entreatment. This same problem arises in societies which embrace secularism not only in governance, but in personal philosophy. When we feel we are being surveyed by a loving and just Deity, when we hope our character will be consequential in eternity, we believe that kindness, love, charity, and other character strengths will be of greater value than the temporary forgoing of certain immediate ease or pleasure. However, when there is no such religious belief, there is no great incentive to act for the social good when it conflicts with selfish desires.

The government should practice great self-restraint in providing entitlement programs for political capital. Instead, allow and empower social institutions to build character and welfare through trust and teamwork. The government should manipulate incentives to strengthen churches and strong families and to give compassionately; but, it should not force giving nor make receiving a "right." Let us unite often, literally and in purpose, for the benefit of all.