Saturday, March 22, 2014

AGENCY & RESPONSIBILITY



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.

I think it is sometimes appropriate to take to the streets and protest in defense of our rights.  But, I wonder what it would be like if we took to the streets in support of our joint responsibilities and mutual concern.  Why can’t we spend at least as much time talking about our obligations?  We could condense our libraries of legislative code down to a few pages if we fully committed to live by the golden rule and exercise our rights responsibly and with charity.  Will it happen?  Probably not outside of some great societal leap forward or divine millennial reign.  But, next time we want to stand up for our rights or pass judgment on legislated morality, perhaps we would do more good to seek out our obligations and concentrate on them.  When we begin to measure our use of moral agency by what is responsible and charitable in exercising our rights, the world will truly be a better place.