Let me try to summarize some stuff, knowing I'll be leaving out lots of details. Eric points to a post and comments happening at Libertopia, and has a comment I really like and one I disagree with, sort of:
Sorry, I flat out and vehemently disagree with the idea that something is moral just because the majority of the citizens think it's okay.
I Strongly Agree.
I won't speak for Robert, but I'll answer your question. Government appears to be an evil (yes, I consider coercive monopolies, which is what government is, to be evil) that most humans wish to foist on themselves. That doesn't mean that they are good things.
Not so much.
He then expands a little on his own blog, with this statement:
Here's the problem. Groups can't be moral, or immoral, nor can nations. Morality, and moral choice, is always an individual position. No matter what we are talking about, every choice, every decision, is always made by an individual.
Every decision may be made by an individual, but sometimes the decision is "I will follow the legal orders of my group." Or even without the "legal" part. This is part of all militaries, as far as I know. This is, to a lesser extent, part of fraternities. And, to some extent, is part of a government.
I like groups. 100 men, acting as a group, can do things that 100 men acting as individuals can't do. [yeah, this is a debatable statement, but I still believe it.] The problem comes when the group is hijacked, and starts doing things that individuals want rather than what the group was formed to do. Then people start questioning the goals of the group, and either leave or try to use the group for their own ends.
That's why things like sexual misconduct in the military are such a big deal. The military has a purpose: defend the US [my best guess]. When you join the military, you agree to this goal, and to follow orders. That's why there's a hell of a lot of difference between this guy getting orders to kill people, and doing it, and a mass murderer. Therefore, orders used to coerce sex, for instance, get the victim thinking about whether s/he should follow orders, and the system breaks.
That's also why I hate collectivist thinking. Essentially (1) you have to join the group (2) only a few people set the agenda for the group (3) any dissension against the goals of the individuals is taken as disloyalty against the group. So yeah, it turns into a coercive monopoly.
So, am I saying I want coercive non-monopolies? That would be better, but I don't know how much of an improvement it would be. Non-coercive monopolies? To so extent, that was early America, but we really can't go back there without a huge frontier. Do I want all governments to collapse? Not really, I think our technological improvements would be curtailed by total anarchy. Maybe capitalist anarchy or something else would be better, but I haven't seen it work in action, so I don't know.
Do I want us all to ascend into forms of coherent energy, freed from the bonds of mortal existence? Yeah, that would be cool. Failing that, does anyone have any ideas?
Posted by Owlish at August 10, 2005 01:14 PM | TrackBackInteresting post. One thing I am not sure I agree with is that groups cannot make moral decisions. Actually, I strongly disagree. Why? Juries. Juries make moral decisions and judgments all the time and they often get it right, sometimes reflecting the mores of society as it exists, sometimes nullifying the law to reflect morals and mores as they think it should be, well in advance of the law. In fact, another. Congress. Congress makes law which is, when done well, the codification of a moral position.
No, the more I think about it, the less I agree with the other guy.
You, on the other hand, may be on to something.
Posted by: RP at August 10, 2005 03:33 PMHey RP, the "other guy" is me ;-). The jury is still 12 individuals. They may talk to each other, debate with each other, make a decision all in the same room. But, ultimately, the 12 jurors (or 6, or whatever) must each make their own, individual decision.
Posted by: Eric at August 10, 2005 05:41 PMI don't know about that specific case. The jury has to come to a decision as a group, that's why it takes so long sometimes. If they can't agree on a result, it's a mistrial. Yes, every juror is responsible individually, but you're using their ability to act as a group.
The other part is, Congress might be able to make a good decision, but is it acting as a moral agent? Eric [I think] would say no, I would say probably not, just because it's so big and so removed from the voters. You'll never get all the Congressmen to agree on a mission statement, unless it's completely nebulous.
Posted by: owlish at August 10, 2005 07:33 PMOh, hey, Eric! Sorry about that, I didn't focus at all on who Owlish was quoting from. No disrespect intended, my friend!
That said, I don't agree with you. Juries reach decisions collectively, after debate and discussion, after weighing evidence and credibility, after making moral judgments and questioning and disecting. They come to their task as individuals but they agonize as a group.
Congress, Owlish, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, is a moral body, too. Making laws is a moral task, whether they codify existing morality or make new laws to reflect how society ought to function. They do it as a group, hopefully, and they do it as our representatives, as our moral voice. There are many of them but that is the strength of a representative democracy, it seems to me. We don't need a mission statement from them -- we have one in our Constitution and our Dec. of Independance.
Once again, sorry about that, Eric. Hope all is well with you!
Posted by: RP at August 10, 2005 08:05 PMHey RP, no problem, just wanted to point out who said what. Disagreement is fine by me, it just means I want to whack you over the head harder until you agree!
I understand the point you're making, but having been, personally, part of some of those group decision making exercises I think that you and I are talking past each other.
I agree that groups work together to make decisions. I wouldn't disagree with that. What I'm trying to get at is that the decision itself, whether it is to vote guilty, or vote for a piece of legislation, or follow your sergeant's orders, or whatever the case may be, is still made by each and every individual. And, just as importantly, they are, each and every one, responsible for the outcome of their individual decision. I keep trying to find another way to say it to convey what I mean and I don't seem to succeed.
Posted by: Eric at August 10, 2005 08:33 PMActually, Eric, I'm not so sure that we disagree with each other. I think, at base, we are in total agreement. It just may be that I am willing to push it out farther than you are comfortable with. Still, interesting exercise and feel free to bash away!
Thanks, Owlish, for letting Eric and me whack away (nicely) at each other on your comment board!
Posted by: RP at August 11, 2005 08:13 AMHeh. As long as everyone plays nicely, no whacks will be necessary.
And Eric, I get your point, but I think there's a difference between a mass murderer and an efficient military sniper. And if there's no involvement of the group in the decision, I don't see that they're that much different.
Posted by: owlish at August 11, 2005 08:34 AMUltimately, deciding to pull the trigger, whether you are a mass murderer or a military sniper, is a decision made by an individual. The difference, and one that is causing the difficulty, is whether the decision was influenced by others. Of course it was. We are social animals, there is no getting around that. But it doesn't change the fact the fact that every single decision is made by an individual, ultimately. And understanding that is the key to understanding morality, moral behavior and moral responsibility.
Posted by: Eric at August 11, 2005 02:04 PM