For those who read my last post, this will seem like a
variation on that theme. So be it. I think it is a question that begs of further
investigation. I believe it was Ghandi
who expressed the danger of concentrating on rights without giving equal consideration
to responsibilities. I want to suggest
that true freedom comes from the appropriate exercise of agency, and not only from
a constitutional guarantee.
In my religion we often talk of a God given gift of free
agency. That is an unfortunate term as
agency, by definition, implies a free exercise thereof. The more accurate term from the scriptural
reference is moral agency rather than free agency. In other words, the freedom to discern and
chose from what we believe to be right and wrong in our decisions and actions. We believe that prior to our mortality we
were faced with a decision. On one hand,
God desired that we have the opportunity to exercise moral agency, knowing that
some would not choose the right and would be subject to the consequences of
their decisions. On the other hand,
Lucifer proposed that moral agency be withheld and all individuals would be
forced to choose right from wrong. For a
third part of the hosts, being forced to choose right seemed preferable than
the risk of choosing wrong and they followed Lucifer. The rest accepted a mortal probation that
would test the content and strength of their innermost character—allowing them,
through big decisions and little ones, to exercise their moral agency and
accept the consequences of their determination.
The problem with Lucifer’s plan is that it was unworkable in
determining who would choose to progress and what ends they would achieve. An achievement forced upon us has little
meaning. A condition un-chosen is little
more than a prison—even if it be an opulent one. While on the surface success for everyone may
have seemed desirable, it was an illusion.
And, once chosen, the illusion lead only to misery, for those who
followed it found its inefficacy and now suffered only the misery of wanting
and grasping at what was impossible to have.
Nonetheless, misery loves company and the demonic is tasked to convince
us that we also can have, even deserve, something for nothing—rights without
responsibility—pleasure without conviction—power without moral purpose—selfish
indulgence without consequence. Hence
comes upon our condition the nature of evil, which is the choice to act
regardless of the negative consequence to ourselves or others, or even to seek
the negative consequences for others for the sake of our own pleasure, power, or
gain (See a previous post on the nature of evil).
Setting the religious background of the philosophy aside,
what is the manifestation and danger in our society? We tout freedom and rights as cornerstones of
our political and economic system, and so they are. But, they are only one side of the
equation. Separated from their conjoined
twins, they are illusions which lead to evil.
What are these twins? Responsibility
and charity are the counterbalances and fulfillers of freedoms and rights.
When our children were growing up, we instituted and
attempted to enforce a number of family rules to maintain order and safety in
the home—to varying degrees of success or failure. Since it appears to be human nature to
explore the edges of the envelope and look for the loopholes, I quickly learned
that governance by statute seemed to require an every increasing
codification. Every rule had its
exception and every exception required a new rule to adequately establish a
workable boundary. In a move that was
part epiphany and part frustration, we finally threw most of the rules away and
established two principles upon which all behavior in the home could be
judged. Was it responsible, and was it
loving? Responsible referred to whether
the decision or action brought negative consequences upon others, self, or the
environment—if it broke mom’s lamp, stained the carpet, or sent your brother away
crying and bleeding then it wasn’t responsible.
Loving went one step further and asked if it would benefit and improve
the condition of others and self—was the action born of or ruled by kindness
and consideration? If the action was
irresponsible or the opposite of loving, then we determined it was in some way
morally wrong and inappropriate in the family.
Did that solve all the problems in our oh-so-human household? No, but maybe it did set a direction and
hopefully increase the potential for a positive result in the one thing that
all parents hope for, that their children develop moral character and turn out
to be good people.
There is a popular saying that you can’t legislate
morality. This is usually used by
somebody who wants to argue against the moral standard behind a law. The reality is that most of the laws on the
books are based on somebody’s standard of what is right or wrong, or in other
words, what is moral. Stealing and
murder are crimes because as a society we determined that these behaviors were
wrong. Speeding and running a stop light
have been determined to put others and self at risk of death or injury, and
therefore they are wrong or immoral behaviors.
So, let’s talk some examples of this thesis applied. There are those that read the constitution to
say that we all have a right to bear firearms (that is a somewhat limited and
biased reading of the amendment which concentrates on one part of one sentence
to the possible exclusion of the rest of the paragraph—but that is another
discussion and I want to go on record that I do agree that most Americans do
have a right to the appropriate use of firearms). That freedom may be exercised appropriately
in target shooting, legal hunting, or as a last recourse in self defense. Or, it may result in evil if used for violent
coercion, revenge, or to maim or kill for pleasure. If we are to accept this right as a society,
then don’t we also have the obligation to try and ensure it is exercised so
that those that bear arms do so responsibly and with charity? Should it be expected that they be trained in
the safe use of the gun, that they keep it secure from children, that they hunt
with it only in a legal manner, and that it be used in self defense only as a
last resort when all other options have failed—rather than at the mere hint of
danger? Whatever we define as the
responsible and loving use of the firearm, does society have a right to
regulate such? Or, as some suggest, does
any regulation concerning the possession and use of the firearm somehow negate
the right to bear it?
Property rights are another example. In a perfect world there would be no need for
regulation of how an individual or business is allowed to utilize their
property or capital. They would
adequately judge and care about whether their use and development would have
negative affects upon their neighbors, including their employees on the part of
a business, or on the environment. Self
benefit and profit would be weighed against the short and long term
consequences for others. We don’t seem
to live in that perfect world. While
waving the flag of property rights and anti-regulation, individuals and
businesses often make decisions that harm those around them or destroy the
environment. We say that we have a right
to do what is best for us. We say that
competition and profits are the names of the game and therefore some are bound
to lose in our zero-sum world. I suggest
that rights without responsibility and human charity are just another name for
evils.
