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."
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment