Am I a libertarian or a utilitarian?

Evan Mandery, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, recently wrote about his experience teaching an ethics course based on Michael Sandel’s book, “Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do?” (which I’ve read and loved).  He taught the course for a semester at Appalachian State in Boone, NC, thinking he might find a difference in how people make ethical judgments in the Deep South when compared to Manhattan-based John Jay.  He didn’t.

While exploring how people make those judgments, one student stood out – one he describes as a libertarian.  Mandery tells us he believes the student would “sacrifice himself for the greater good” and observes that “people are too willing to prioritize what’s politically expedient over fundamental values.”  I confess I find his view confusing as sacrificing oneself for the greater good sounds more utilitarian than libertarian.  It was John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian ethicist, who defined the “greatest happiness principle” as “a moral action that maximizes utility, or happiness, for the greatest number of people.”  If that’s utilitarianism, wouldn’t one who sacrifices oneself for the greater good be utilitarian?  

Lately, I’ve taken to calling myself a libertarian. It’s how I express my distaste for the two predominant political parties without engaging in a long-winded explanation.  It has the added advantage of not having to defend policies or candidates affiliated with one or the other.  

But, that’s an expedient position rather than a principled one.  The truth is I am more pragmatic than dogmatic, arguing for the action I believe benefits society most.  So, for example, I would never argue that businesses should not be regulated as a true libertarian might.  To argue in favor of the chaos that would result from the complete elimination of regulation is, in my view, both lazy and impractical.

So, am I a utilitarian?

French economist Thomas Piketty has observed that elites may be divided between the “Brahmin left” (Silicon Valley) and the “merchant right” (Oil & Gas magnates).  Each has captured one of the major parties leaving out those with little money or education.  And, so, both Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren gain favor among them by espousing the theory that the system is “rigged.”

I reject the excuses of declaring the system rigged.  Sure, moneyed interests pour cash into our political system.  And, yes, those interests don’t much care about you and me.  But, at the end of the day, those of us in the middle-class are just trying to keep a roof over our heads, food on the table and enjoy ourselves with what’s left over.  The system, rigged or not, is what we learn to deal with.  In that sense, we – those who occupy the middle-class suburbs of most cities – might be libertarians.  We take responsibility for our own families and our own outcomes.  

So, am I a libertarian?   

WHO WILL LEAD? 

Is it 1984 yet?

I just finished reading Stephen Hawking’s book, “A Brief History of Time.”  I confess it’s a challenging read for a non-scientist.  However, Hawking was much more than a scientist and mathematician. He reveals himself to be a moral philosopher as well. Throughout his detailed discussion of how science evolved from Copernicus to Einstein and beyond, he points to how religion has historically explained what science could not and how the advances of the last half of the 20th Century explained so much that it has diminished the role of religion in society.  Similarly, it has diminished the role of philosophy (perhaps a greater loss). What had been promoted by great moral thinkers from Aristotle to Kant has been lost now that we know how the universe works. In the last chapter, he quotes 20^th Century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein as saying, “The sole remaining task of philosophy is the analysis of language.” 

The disappearance of philosophy from our public discourse may explain why, instead of having a clear understanding of what’s right and wrong or moral vs immoral, we now focus on rules of behavior and the politics of reallocating capital. 

So, where are we headed?

The Chinese government has created a “social credit system” to build trust on the basis of compliance with social norms defined by the central government.  Americans don’t need the government to impose one.  We impose it on ourselves.  Shaming is a national pastime.  American companies – who have two strikes against them just by existing – can trip the switch from adored to reviled in the blink of an eye.  We’ve seen it happen to Uber, United Airlines and Facebook among others.

It doesn’t take a large majority to create a movement.  Very vocal extremists can affect electoral outcomes and now occupy seats in Congress. Much like the pastor of a small Orlando church created an international crisis of terrorism by threatening to burn a copy of the Koran (see “Is that what Jesus would do? Really?”), a small cohort with a resonant hashtag, armed with a meme or two, can create a social movement.  Think of #blacklivesmatter, #MeToo or #icebucketchallenge.

On the one hand, this phenomenon is a sign of a strong democracy. Social media provides a platform for small voices to be heard.  A lonely voice may become a force for social good when a large enough chorus mobilizes for change.  

On the other hand, it has bred what Arthur Brooks calls a “culture of contempt.”  And, media profits by its proliferation. Social media provides a platform for outrageous claims and behavior while mainstream media – particularly cable news – profits by reporting it, analyzing it and discussing it ad nauseum. What divides us now is language and how issues are framed.  

Are high taxes a way to enable social benefits or confiscation of private property?

Is abortion just ending a pregnancy or is it killing a child?

The way one answers those questions inflames our tribal passions. 

Aristotle believed that a virtuous society was the result of the works of good people.  Good works must be defined on the basis of a set of principles embraced by nearly all citizens.  As the influence of religion and philosophy have faded, we are no longer guided by a set of generally accepted principles.  Rather, we focus on rules of behavior.  And, we disagree vehemently about what those rules should be. So, conservative speakers are hounded from college campuses, bureaucratic failings lead to boycotts of corporations; and, the voices of extremists yield public discussion of radical ideas as though they are reasonable.

George Orwell’s great book “1984” reinforced Wittgenstein’s description of philosophy in the 20th Century by creating new additions to our language:  Newspeak, Thought Police, Groupthink, etc.  We now capture those concepts under the umbrella of “political correctness.” Here’s a description of Newspeak from his book:

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view…, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought … should be literally unthinkable...”

So, is it 1984 yet?

WHO WILL LEAD? 

What I’m reading

For a perspective on how Republicans can address climate change check this out from The American Enterprise Institute: Carbon tax most efficient in tackling climate change… And, while I’m on the subject, check out this opinion piece from the WSJ: The Nuclear Option is the Real Green New Deal… Bill and Melinda Gates run a foundation in their names tackling global challenges.  As broad as their perspective is, they still get surprised from time to time.  Check out their blog post “We Didn’t See This Coming.”