Goodbye Justice, Hello Happiness

Given that personal well-being flows less from economic factors than from psychological factors such as a sense of personal control over ones life, Bagaric and McConvill contend that most restrictive laws which do not directly harm others should be repealed. For example, laws restricting property rights and pornography should be relaxed.

Does happiness research mandate such libertarianism? I think not. Indeed, the growing evidence of our human need to belong -- to connect in close, intimate, supportive, enduring relationships suggests that what modern western cultures need is not more individualism but less.

The mantras of me-thinking individualism are familiar: Do your own thing. Question authority. If it feels good, do it. Follow your bliss. Don't conform. Think for yourself. Be true to yourself. You owe it to yourself.

Amitai Etzioni, a recent president of the American Sociological Association, urges us toward an alternative to libertarian individualism - a communitarian ethos that balances individualism with a spirit of community. Fellow sociologist Robert Bellah concurs.

Communitarianism is based on the value of the sacredness of the individual, he explains. But it also affirms the central value of solidarity . . . that we become who we are through our relationships. In Bowling Alone, political scientist Robert Putnam documents the decline of social capital that attends growing individualism.

What I have called The American Paradox describes the irony of post-1960 America, which was a time of surging liberty and affluence (the good news) and declining civility and social health (the bad news). As our rights become more secure and our disposable incomes rose, social connections frayed and depression, teen suicide, and crime became more severe. More than ever, we at the end of the last century were finding ourselves with big houses and broken homes, high incomes and low morale, secured rights and diminished civility. We were excelling at making a living but too often failing at making a life. We celebrated our prosperity but yearned for purpose. We cherished our freedoms but longed for connection. In an age of plenty, we were feeling spiritual hunger.

Communitarians, who proclaim a third way alternative to individualism and collectivism, believe that individual rights must be balanced with social responsibilities, that libertarian individualism must be restrained by concern for our communal well-being. We humans like to feel unique and in control of our lives, but we also are social creatures having a basic need to belong. Communitarian 'we-thinking' is leading to greater protections of communal well-being, as in smoking restraints on aeroplanes and in restaurants, environmental legislation that protects the commons, and restraints on individuals rights to sell and own weapons. The communitarian bottom line: we need to balance our needs for independence and attachment, privacy and community, liberty and fraternity.

Thus, if pornography can be shown (as I believe it has been) to contribute to an impulsive sexuality that undermines one of the biggest predictors of happiness a stable and close marriage and the co-parenting of children then Bagaric and McConvill would, I presume, want to make a case for restraints on pornography, or at least for a public education program that will increase awareness of the dividends of covenant relationships.

Listen to communitarians talk about European-style child benefits, extended parental leaves, flexible working hours, campaign finance reform, and ideas for fostering the commons and you'd swear they are liberals. Listen to them talk about covenant marriages, divorce reform, father care, and character education and you'd swear they are conservatives. In fact, communitarians see themselves not as a midpoint but as a third alternative to the individualism-authoritarian and liberal-conservative polarities.

This 'Third Way', as people first called it in Tony Blair's Britain, aims to synthesize some of the best ideas from both camps.

Communitarians welcome incentives for individual initiative and appreciate why Marxist economies have crumbled. If I were, let's say, in Albania at this moment, said Communitarian Network co-founder Etzioni, I probably would argue that there's too much community and not enough individual rights. Even in communal Japan (where the nail that sticks out gets pounded down), Etzioni says he would sing a song of individuality. In the individualistic American context, he sings a song of social order. Where there is chaos in a neighborhood, people may feel like prisoners in their homes.

Opposition to communitarians comes from civil libertarians of the left, economic libertarians of the right, and special interest libertarians (such as the U.S. National Rifle Association). Much as these organizations differ, they are branches of the same tree - all valuing individual rights in the contest with the common good. Communitarians take on all such varieties of libertarians. Unrestrained personal freedom, they say, destroys a cultures social fabric; unrestrained commercial freedom exploits workers and plunders the commons. Etzioni sums up the communitarian ideal in his New Golden Rule:

"-- Respect and uphold societys moral order as you would have society respect and uphold your autonomy. --"

To reflect on your own libertarian versus communitarian leanings, consider what restraints on liberty you support: luggage scanning at airports smoking bans in public places speed limits on highways? sobriety checkpoints? drug testing of pilots and rail engineers? prohibitions on leaf burning? restrictions on TV cigarette ads? regulations on stereo or muffler noise? pollution controls? requiring seat belts and motorcycle helmets? disclosure of sexual contacts for HIV carriers? outlawing child pornography? banning AK-47s and other non-hunting weapons of destruction? required school uniforms? wire taps on suspected terrorists? fingerprinting checks to protect welfare, unemployment, and Social Security funds from fraud?

All such restraints on individual rights, most opposed by libertarians of one sort or another, aim to enhance the public good.

Libertarians often object to restraints on guns, panhandlers, pornography, drugs, or business by warning that such may plunge us down a slippery slope leading to the loss of more important liberties. If today we let them search our luggage, tomorrow they'll be invading our houses. If today we censor cigarette ads on television, tomorrow the thought police will be removing books from our libraries. If today we ban handguns, tomorrow's Big Brother government will take our hunting rifles.

Communitarians reply that if we don't balance concern for individual rights with concern for the commons, we risk chaos and a new fascism.

Much as these organizations differ, they are branches of the same tree - all valuing individual rights in the contest with the common good. Communitarians take on all such varieties of libertarians. Unrestrained personal freedom, they say, destroys a cultures social fabric; unrestrained commercial freedom exploits workers and plunders the commons.

Of the many examples of flawed thinking I could choose from in this article, I think this one gets to the heart of the matter. The communitarians make two errors here.

First, they present individual rights as an obstacle to or in opposition against the common good. That just isn't the case. Economic liberty leads to the most efficient allocation of resources in a community- it leads to the greatest total wealth for a society. Personal liberty enriches a culture. The freedom to think, create, and criticize only make a culture stronger, not weaker.

Second, for all their rhetoric about respect for the individual, they seem awfully willing to resort to coercion to achieve their goals. Laws are the first and only solution they offer for protecting the "social fabric". Even if I accept that there needs to be more concern for community, why does it have to come from the barrel of a government gun? Whatever happened to persuasion, voluntary organizations, or involvement in church groups?

This may have been the best part, though:

Etzioni sums up the communitarian ideal in his New Golden Rule: "-- Respect and uphold societys moral order as you would have society respect and uphold your autonomy. --"

Is it just me, or did anyone else find this "New Golden Rule" to be utterly self-contradicting and senseless?

"-- restraints on individual rights aim to enhance the public good. --"

Know your enemy. -- Communitarianism.

I think you're missing the whole point. While I don't agree with the communitarians on what constitutes the public good, such as smoking bans, seat belt laws, etc., they are right about the fact that individualism is running rampant in western countries, to the point where it is undermining any sense that there even is a common good or any good beyond that of the individual.

What 'good' can come from "-- restraints on individual rights --"?

We have exalted individual rights above everything else, including the responsibility that accompanies the exercise of any right.

Simply not true. -- 100 years ago, individuals in the USA were significantly more 'free', - and more responsible.

When the individual's right to pursue happiness becomes more important than his duty to the community, then justice suffers.

Rattle them chains..

I read your post and agree with it. Clearly, in our society individual rights have trumped any concept of doing what is right. We no longer recognize any moral order outside of the law or outside of our own values. And this is not primarily a political problem, it is not the result of our political/economic system. It is a philosophical problem. The West has abandoned its traditional moral philosophy, which was Aristotelian, in favor of a moral philosophy, or ethics, which sees all morality as subjective, as ultimately deriving from the individual's will and not from any objective order. As Professor Alasdair McIntyre of the University of Notre Dame has written, while we have a language of morality, that language no longer has the same meaning that it used to have nor does it mean the same thing to everyone any more. What is moral to one person is immoral to another. The result is that our debates on important moral and political issue are not only acrimonious but they are incapable of being resolved. Frankly, I don't see any easy solution to this.

Your first quote about restraints on individual rights did not come from me. However, there has to be some limit to the claims of individual rights, especially when these rights conflict with the good of the community. Moreover, many of the things that people think are individual rights or should be individual rights really are not. Rather, they are just examples of license or demands for entitlements. To exalt these "rights" above the common good is wrong. Moreover, these individual rights often conflict and unless we recognize some moral order beyond the law, we can't resolve the competing claims of these rights.

100 years ago, Americans were more responsible and they were more free from governmental interference in their lives. However, they also adhered to a stricter code of morality than we do today. They recognized that there was a moral code beyond that of their own personal values or desires. Therefore, they had greater liberty than we do.

I think you are confusing liberty with license. And, unfortunately, license undermines liberty,

From the article:

"-- restraints on individual rights aim to enhance the public good. --"

Know your enemy. -- Communitarianism.

What 'good' can come from "-- restraints on individual rights --"?

We have exalted individual rights above everything else, including the responsibility that accompanies the exercise of any right.

Simply not true. -- 100 years ago, individuals in the USA were significantly more 'free', - and more responsible.

When the individual's right to pursue happiness becomes more important than his duty to the community, then justice suffers.

Rattle them chains..

Your first quote about restraints on individual rights did not come from me.

I did not quote it so.

However, there has to be some limit to the claims of individual rights, especially when these rights conflict with the good of the community.

A community that restricts human rights is up to no 'good', constitutionally speaking.

Moreover, many of the things that people think are individual rights or should be individual rights really are not. Rather, they are just examples of license or demands for entitlements.

Can you cite some specific examples? -- Our constitutional rights to life, liberty or property cover a lot of ground.

To exalt these "rights" above the common good is wrong.

Exalting the 'common good' over individual liberty is constitutionally right/correct?

Moreover, these individual rights often conflict

Again, cite some 'conflicting rights'. I'd bet you can't.

and unless we recognize some moral order beyond the law, we can't resolve the competing claims of these rights.

Yep, you want us to recognize ~your vision~ of a 'moral order'. No thanks.

100 years ago, Americans were more responsible and they were more free from governmental interference in their lives. However, they also adhered to a stricter code of morality than we do today. They recognized that there was a moral code beyond that of their own personal values or desires.

Do you have any support for that opinion? I'd say that the historical facts of red light districts in every major town in the USA belie your theory.

Therefore, they had greater liberty than we do.

You got that right.

I think you are confusing liberty with license. And, unfortunately, license undermines liberty,

Yep, thats the line, - if you want to license liberty.

Here are some examples of things that are not genuine rights but are demands for entitlements or license: pornography, free medical care, cheap housing, a good job, gambling, abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, sex outside of marriage, gay marriage, freedom from second-hand cigarette smoke, accomodation in school or the workplace to one's religious beliefs. These are all things that some people champion as rights which they are entitled to. While all of them could be classified as means of pursuing happiness, they are not rights in any sense of the word. But, it is almost impossible for our individualistic culture, which recognizes no moral code above itself, to say "no" to granting rights to any group or individual who demands them, regardless of how outlandish the rights are.

You sound like a libertarian, not a conservative. The problem with libertarianism, though, is that it is really just a form of utlititarianism, an individualistic form of utilitarianism but a form of it nonetheless. And it is the utlititarianism which has gotten us into this quandry where no point of view on morality is seen as superior to any other.

Finally, if you can't see that liberty is not the same as license, then there is no point in arguing with you. You are beyond any logic or reason.

And it is the utlititarianism which has gotten us into this quandry where no point of view on morality is seen as superior to any other.

Morality should remain the province of the various religions. The power of the State should not be applied to force a religious code of morality on the people which they may not subscribe to in their own private affairs.

Using the State to stifle choice in matters of adults and their relationship with vice can destroy the very concept of morality...

Albert J. Nock argues in his essay, "On Doing the Right Thing," that the moral development of the individual is stunted every time the State extends its activity into new areas because the area available for the unhindered and free exercise of the human moral faculties is thus reduced.

In fact, he argues, in moral philosophy there is a fundamental assumption that individuals are responsible for their actions. It makes no sense to say that an individual should or should not do something on moral grounds (e.g. place a bet on a football game) if that individual cannot freely choose between different courses of action (if betting is illegal).

Nock argues that literally there can be no such thing as morality unless one has the freedom to choose between alternatives, without external sources of coercion.

I would be pleased if our Government could deal with the very real science of Ethics in it's own house before it imposes on society some sort of State sanctioned religious morality.

I am amazed that so-called conservatives have forgotten this lesson and now want to divorce law from morality and in the name of liberty, no less.

I am amazed that you are amazed. Conservatism is replete with historical writings that condemn the State in regards legislating "moral laws" over people whose actions do not rise to the level of "breaking my leg or picking my pocket".

One of many, and my favorite is John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. In Chapter IV: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual, he writes...

It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other's conduct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. But disinterested benevolence can find other instruments to persuade people to their good, than whips and scourges, either of the literal or the metaphorical sort.

I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding virtues; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social. It is equally the business of education to cultivate both. But even education works by conviction and persuasion as well as by compulsion, and it is by the former only that, when the period of education is past, the self-regarding virtues should be inculcated.

Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. They should be for ever stimulating each other to increased exercise of their higher faculties, and increased direction of their feelings and aims towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and contemplations.

He then goes on to write...

But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most interested in his own well-being: the interest which any other person, except in cases of strong personal attachment, can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has; the interest which society has in him individually (except as to his conduct to others) is fractional, and altogether indirect: while, with respect to his own feelings and circumstances, the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else.

The interference of society to overrule his judgment and purposes in what only regards himself, must be grounded on general presumptions; which may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases, by persons no better acquainted with the circumstances of such cases than those are who look at them merely from without.

In this department, therefore, of human affairs, Individuality has its proper field of action. In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person's own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise. Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others; but he himself is the final judge.

All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.

I hope this helps explain the conservative philosophy of individual liberty.

-- individual rights often conflict.

Again, cite some 'conflicting rights'. I'd bet you can't. [I see no answer below]

and unless we recognize some moral order beyond the law, we can't resolve the competing claims of these rights.

Yep, you want us to recognize ~your vision~ of a 'moral order'. No thanks.

Do you have any support for that opinion? I'd say that the historical facts of red light districts in every major town in the USA belie your theory. [I see no answer below]

Therefore, they had greater liberty than we do.

You got that right.

I think you are confusing liberty with license. And, unfortunately, license undermines liberty

Yep, thats the line, - if you want to license liberty.

Here are some examples of things that are not genuine rights but are demands for entitlements or license: free medical care, cheap housing, a good job, gay marriage, freedom from second-hand cigarette smoke, accomodation in school or the workplace to one's religious beliefs. These are all things that some people champion as 'rights' which they are entitled to.
Oh, and I forgot these examples. What about the illegal immigrants who claim that it is their "right" to cross our border, get jobs in the U.S., get welfare benefits here, and an education for their children. What about the "right" of enemy combatants in Guatanamo Bay to have the full protection of the U.S. legal system even though they aren't U.S. citizens? What about the right of Muslims to disobey the laws of our country if they conflict with Islamic law. I could go on, but I won't.

Good, seeing I agree.
I removed those that are arguable, seeing that you feel "there is no point in arguing" with anyone "beyond any logic or reason".

While all of them could be classified as means of pursuing happiness, they are not rights in any sense of the word. But, it is almost impossible for our individualistic culture, which recognizes no moral code above itself, to say "no" to granting rights to any group or individual who demands them, regardless of how outlandish the rights are.

I find it telling that you think rights can be "granted" by society.
Apparently you disagree with our founding principle that we are all equally endowed with inalienable rights to life liberty & property, rights we cannot be deprived of without due process of law. Can you say it isn't so?

You sound like a libertarian, not a conservative.

I'm a constitutionalist, and a conservative libertarian, in that order. -- You're sounding like a majority rule statist, not a conservative.

The problem with libertarianism, though, is that it is really just a form of utlititarianism, an individualistic form of utilitarianism but a form of it nonetheless. And it is the utlititarianism which has gotten us into this quandry where no point of view on morality is seen as superior to any other.

I see majority rule statism as the reason we're in this quandary where one point of view on morality is seen as superior to others.

Finally, if you can't see that liberty is not the same as license, then there is no point in arguing with you. You are beyond any logic or reason.

You insisted that I confuse liberty with license. -- I don't.
And you claimed that, "-- unfortunately, license undermines liberty --"

Yep, thats the line, - if you want to license liberty. -- I don't. Do you?

Unfortunately for you, you have just proven my argument since John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian. In fact, he was the founder of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is a poor foundation for conservatism to rest upon because it rejects both the idea that man has an end outside of himself or that there is an objective moral order existing outside of the law or outside of the desires of the individual or the majority of individuals. (After all, the basic tenet of utilitarianism is to seek the greatest good for the greatest number.) Traditional moral philosophy, which is Aristotelian, provides a sound basis for conservative thought since it recognizes that man has an end, that there is something he ought to be which he not yet is and because it recognizes an objective moral order existing outside the law, upon which the law should be based.

That is NOT the same as saying that the State must legislate every aspect of morality. Far from it. But to say that the State must divorce law from morality is equally wrong. It is also impossible since laws tell people how they ought to behave and are based on some conception of what is right and wrong. It is just a question of whose morality the law will be based on. And this is precisely what we as a society cannot agree upon.

I am using "license" in the sense of "lack of due restraint, excessive freedom," which is one of its dictionary defitions. You are playing a little game of semantics. You know what I mean, but you are distorting my meaning.

The existence of red light districts was, in fact, an admission that such establishments did not belong within the community proper. It is not proof that Americans who lived 100 years ago approved of what went on inside those establishments.

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I am not saying that rights are granted by society. I am not denying that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God given rights (not Constitution-given rights). But I am saying that when individual rights are exalted over every other consideration, when the needs and wants of the individual become paramount even over the public good, then any number of demands can be categorized as "rights." And there is no way for us as a society to determine which of these rights, which, in the opinion of their supporters, all fall under the category of "liberty" or "pursuit of happiness," are really rights and which are not.

If you can't understand this, there is no point in continuing this debate.

Philosophically, Mill was a radical empiricist who held that all human knowledge, including even mathematics and logic, is derived by generalization from sensory experience. In A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive (1843) he explained in great detail the canons for reasoning inductively to conclusions about the causal connections exhibited in the natural world.

Socrates listened to the old Protagoras, and asserted (if Plato's dialogue be grounded on a real conversation) the theory of utilitarianism against the popular morality of the so-called sophist.

Mill's moral philosophy was a modified version of the utilitarian theory he had learned from his father and Jeremy Bentham. In the polemical Utilitarianism (1861) Mill developed a systematic statement of utilitarian ethical theory. He modified and defended the general principle that right actions are those that tend to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, being careful to include a distinction in the quality of the pleasures that constitute happiness. There Mill also attempted a proof of the principle of utility, explained its enforcement, and discussed its relation to a principle of justice.

Prominent modern empiricists include Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. In the twentieth century, empiricism principles were extended and applied by the pragmatists and the logical positivists.

Henry Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics (1874) and Outlines of the History of Ethics (1886) is another.

These are all conservative writers of the past and there are many others who expouse the same moral philosophy in their writings. And none of these writers suggest the State must divorce law from morality.

What they say is that the State has no buisness dictating the force of the State against people engaged in any activity that affects only that person. It is reason, not intuition which has guided the foundational writers of conservatism.

If one must disgard all the conservative writers who embraced some form of utilitarianism then my shelfs would be nearly bare. In fact, is not your own preference guided by some form of utilitarianism...Do you not think your way seeks the greatest good for the greatest number?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.