Just a suggestion: In addition to Ayn Rand, other writers offer good "color" on the subject of rights and the limits on the government's use of force. Some poignant quotes inserted into your text would add some interest, in my view. Yours is a good effort, and I like that you want to keep updating and improving.
I so appreciate the either-or aspect of all your writing. I can't think anyone who reads this thinks it is something that will be accepted overnight, but if you don't know the ideal you are trying to achieve how will you ever hope to get there. As to the argument that morality is determined by each society for itself, I couldn't disagree more. Morality is the same for all human beings regardless of the society they are living in. The methods for insuring that people can live according to that proper morality may be different from society to society, but whatever those methods are they must protect the ability of each individual in that society to freely achieve his or her objectives in life through their own efforts while preventing individuals from initiating force against any other individual.
Thanks for your feedback. I will use it to clarify certain points. I agree with Russ' statement that "Morality is the same for all human beings..." as human nature is a constant (at least for the foreseeable future). Societies that are committed to limiting government to protecting individual rights (=morally Right) may implement and interpret objective law differently but over time they will converge as they learn from one another and as case law is evolving. Circumcision may be an example of where implementation may vary initially (I haven't really thought about whether it is an individual rights violation or not).
As for dress code and running around naked, it would be at the discretion of property owners to determine what is appropriate on their property ("public" property is limited to the valid functions of government--military, police and the courts--in a society that champions the respect for and protection of individual rights. I've written about what I call "The Tragedy of The Public Square"--the fact that we don't have well defined property rights--here: https://andersingemarson.substack.com/p/the-tragedy-of-the-public-square).
I believe your thinking about the universality of morals is incorrect. Language, words and meanings are created by communities. These all sculpt our views of the world and those views are generally not universal. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2023-19650-004.pdf
Privatizing the public square would bring its own set of problems. For just one example, how would you ensure our constitutional principles if the square is auctioned to the highest bidder and that bidder happens to be the billionaire industrialist who has visions of creating a company town who suppresses dissenting views through control of the "square" and every other community resource?
What are your thoughts about community internet being fought by large providers through legislation that forbids cities from providing internet service? Is it appropriate for cities to provide their citizens with superior value when private companies fail to deliver?
If your supposition is that morals are based on human nature would that not relegate human morals to survival of the fittest, strongest and smartest to do what they want? Don't communities eatablish moral standards to suppress base human nature so that individuals don't disturb the operation of the community in the way they desire?
What if a community defines individual rights to include food, shelter, healthcare, and internet... all provided by the government. I can see how you may find that morally repugnant for how you would like the community you live in to be structured, but how can you say they are morally wrong? Aren't they just deciding to organize and prioritize their lives to a different set of moral standards?
What the community thinks about a "moral response" is all that matters. Isn't it the community that objectively determines what is moral or not? If it is not the community that determines the objective measures that moral decisions are based on who does? If everybody in a community is for something that only affects their community, is it possible for it to be amoral?
I agree too much government intervention is not good. I know it can be difficult to make a point without exaggerating but I believe your perspective would be more broadly acceptable with a less binary approach. The problems you are looking to solve are not binary. Just like the temperature at which water boils changes with pressure, there are many variations in a society that can change the calculus of what makes sense for government to provide.
You believe the government should be limited to physical protection of its citizens. What's the justification for not including other protections?
I get a presentation of these being right or wrong to make a point, however, what you're saying is that one thing is moral and one thing the other is amoral. Isn't morality something that is decided by each society?
The chart in this post is an example of skewing the argument unfairly. The chart shows Right as limited government and wrong as unlimited government, but you seem to put the US government in the wrong category. Are you saying the US government is unlimited?
I believe your quest for more limited government is nobel. I believe the scope of limitations you desire are utopian and in the end not realistic. There are many reasons a government would be more difficult to be managed like a company and there are not even companies that are run like you suggest we should operate our government. If you have examples of successful companies that operate as you suggest we should run our government, those would be good to highlight. Good organizations take advantage of economies of scale and competitive advantage. Why would it not make sense for our government to do the same thing?
I think the idea is that morality can be objectively determined and not "decided by each society". We've definitely seen societies that have decided on horrific 'moralities'. To address another point, sadly it does seem that the US government is unlimited. They are involved in almost every aspect of life and, with 33 Trillion in debt, it is obvious that spending is not limited to the amount of taxes we are willing to pay.
Please tell me the the objective basis for whether circumcision is morally justified. Or what is the objective moral basis for the what is appropriate clothing in NY compared to a tribe in the Amazon? My point is even if there's an objective basis for judging the morality of something. The basis is objectively different in different communities for many moral subjects.
I guess I don't see either of those as moral issues. Dress is personal and circumcision can be medical or just cultural. A moral issue might be whether a society can take money forcibly to pay for the circumcision.
If dress is just a personal issue why is it not okay to walk naked in public pretty much anywhere in the US?
If circumcision isn't obvious enough for you then let's pick something more obvious like abortion. Would you agree abortion is a moral issue that depends on the community?
Abortion is interesting. I think the Objectivist take is that the fetus is living off the mother so the mother can end this relationship. Another Objectivist take is that you need to the responsible for your life and use birth control. These are moral responses to the issue that don't depend on the community. Communities can have moral responses that are wrong. Right and wrong can be objectively determined.
Just a suggestion: In addition to Ayn Rand, other writers offer good "color" on the subject of rights and the limits on the government's use of force. Some poignant quotes inserted into your text would add some interest, in my view. Yours is a good effort, and I like that you want to keep updating and improving.
Thanks, Jim. Good suggestion.
I so appreciate the either-or aspect of all your writing. I can't think anyone who reads this thinks it is something that will be accepted overnight, but if you don't know the ideal you are trying to achieve how will you ever hope to get there. As to the argument that morality is determined by each society for itself, I couldn't disagree more. Morality is the same for all human beings regardless of the society they are living in. The methods for insuring that people can live according to that proper morality may be different from society to society, but whatever those methods are they must protect the ability of each individual in that society to freely achieve his or her objectives in life through their own efforts while preventing individuals from initiating force against any other individual.
Russ, Steve and Mike,
Thanks for your feedback. I will use it to clarify certain points. I agree with Russ' statement that "Morality is the same for all human beings..." as human nature is a constant (at least for the foreseeable future). Societies that are committed to limiting government to protecting individual rights (=morally Right) may implement and interpret objective law differently but over time they will converge as they learn from one another and as case law is evolving. Circumcision may be an example of where implementation may vary initially (I haven't really thought about whether it is an individual rights violation or not).
As for dress code and running around naked, it would be at the discretion of property owners to determine what is appropriate on their property ("public" property is limited to the valid functions of government--military, police and the courts--in a society that champions the respect for and protection of individual rights. I've written about what I call "The Tragedy of The Public Square"--the fact that we don't have well defined property rights--here: https://andersingemarson.substack.com/p/the-tragedy-of-the-public-square).
Re. my views on abortion, see this article: https://andersingemarson.substack.com/p/how-to-bridge-the-abortion-divide.
I believe your thinking about the universality of morals is incorrect. Language, words and meanings are created by communities. These all sculpt our views of the world and those views are generally not universal. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2023-19650-004.pdf
Privatizing the public square would bring its own set of problems. For just one example, how would you ensure our constitutional principles if the square is auctioned to the highest bidder and that bidder happens to be the billionaire industrialist who has visions of creating a company town who suppresses dissenting views through control of the "square" and every other community resource?
What are your thoughts about community internet being fought by large providers through legislation that forbids cities from providing internet service? Is it appropriate for cities to provide their citizens with superior value when private companies fail to deliver?
If your supposition is that morals are based on human nature would that not relegate human morals to survival of the fittest, strongest and smartest to do what they want? Don't communities eatablish moral standards to suppress base human nature so that individuals don't disturb the operation of the community in the way they desire?
What if a community defines individual rights to include food, shelter, healthcare, and internet... all provided by the government. I can see how you may find that morally repugnant for how you would like the community you live in to be structured, but how can you say they are morally wrong? Aren't they just deciding to organize and prioritize their lives to a different set of moral standards?
What the community thinks about a "moral response" is all that matters. Isn't it the community that objectively determines what is moral or not? If it is not the community that determines the objective measures that moral decisions are based on who does? If everybody in a community is for something that only affects their community, is it possible for it to be amoral?
I agree too much government intervention is not good. I know it can be difficult to make a point without exaggerating but I believe your perspective would be more broadly acceptable with a less binary approach. The problems you are looking to solve are not binary. Just like the temperature at which water boils changes with pressure, there are many variations in a society that can change the calculus of what makes sense for government to provide.
You believe the government should be limited to physical protection of its citizens. What's the justification for not including other protections?
I get a presentation of these being right or wrong to make a point, however, what you're saying is that one thing is moral and one thing the other is amoral. Isn't morality something that is decided by each society?
The chart in this post is an example of skewing the argument unfairly. The chart shows Right as limited government and wrong as unlimited government, but you seem to put the US government in the wrong category. Are you saying the US government is unlimited?
I believe your quest for more limited government is nobel. I believe the scope of limitations you desire are utopian and in the end not realistic. There are many reasons a government would be more difficult to be managed like a company and there are not even companies that are run like you suggest we should operate our government. If you have examples of successful companies that operate as you suggest we should run our government, those would be good to highlight. Good organizations take advantage of economies of scale and competitive advantage. Why would it not make sense for our government to do the same thing?
I think the idea is that morality can be objectively determined and not "decided by each society". We've definitely seen societies that have decided on horrific 'moralities'. To address another point, sadly it does seem that the US government is unlimited. They are involved in almost every aspect of life and, with 33 Trillion in debt, it is obvious that spending is not limited to the amount of taxes we are willing to pay.
Please tell me the the objective basis for whether circumcision is morally justified. Or what is the objective moral basis for the what is appropriate clothing in NY compared to a tribe in the Amazon? My point is even if there's an objective basis for judging the morality of something. The basis is objectively different in different communities for many moral subjects.
I guess I don't see either of those as moral issues. Dress is personal and circumcision can be medical or just cultural. A moral issue might be whether a society can take money forcibly to pay for the circumcision.
If dress is just a personal issue why is it not okay to walk naked in public pretty much anywhere in the US?
If circumcision isn't obvious enough for you then let's pick something more obvious like abortion. Would you agree abortion is a moral issue that depends on the community?
Abortion is interesting. I think the Objectivist take is that the fetus is living off the mother so the mother can end this relationship. Another Objectivist take is that you need to the responsible for your life and use birth control. These are moral responses to the issue that don't depend on the community. Communities can have moral responses that are wrong. Right and wrong can be objectively determined.