The Philosophy of Freedom

by Caleb Nelson

  They may say that there is no way to know what is good or evil, or that defining ideas or actions as good or evil is narrow-minded and arrogant. Who are you to decide what is right or wrong? Who are you to think?

  The world is plagued with moral subjectivism. Two common forms of this are personal subjectivism and social subjectivism. These have been accepted over the centuries with many twists and variations.

  [22]

  A subjective morality can be used to justify any action, even murder, rape, or genocide. This is the problem with subjective standards—they aren’t firmly fixed to anything. When they can be whatever we want them to be, how can we even say they are a standard? (The history of the word “standard” has been proposed to be related to “stand hard”, to stand fast or firm—in other words, an unchangeable thing to count on.) It is a symbol of how subjective we have become politically when these days we talk about someone’s stance on such-and-such an issue, rather than their stand.

  Subjective morality is a line in the sand that can be drawn anywhere by anyone at anytime. It doesn’t matter whether the subjectivity is based on feelings, whims, opinions, political expediency, or religious beliefs; none of those things have a firm footing in observable reality. The good news is that there is a code of morality that can be proven to be true by the facts of reality. The trouble is, just looking around, facts seem to be everywhere, but morality does not seem easily discernible. The necessary tool to discover a proper morality based on facts depends upon the advanced ability of our minds to manipulate abstract concepts (e.g. good and evil). That tool is reason.

  Humans need moral guidance, without which we wouldn’t know the right way to spend our time. Do we work for a living or steal from others? Do we lie or tell the truth? Should we befriend someone, marry them, vote for them, or trust them with our children? In order to achieve happiness, we need to know how to evaluate our choices. We need a principle to guide our decisions.

  But it’s not as easy as it sounds. We can’t just pick a goal and take actions to achieve it. We must first ask, “What is a proper goal?” What is the standard by which we should measure the rightness of our goals? The issue of morality is not an issue of effective means. It is an issue of proper ends.

  What is a proper end? There are many ends for which people take action. We study to learn. We get a job to get a paycheck. We get a paycheck to buy other things for other purposes and so on. But where does it all end? Writer Craig Biddle asked it this way, “We need to discover a final end—one toward which all of our other goals and values are properly aimed. Such an end is . . . the standard against which we can objectively assess the value of all our choices and actions. So then the question becomes: What is our ultimate goal?”

  [23]

  The answer: Life and joy.

  A moral life is one that both protects that life and provides it with the conditions of happiness.

  It is important to keep in mind the meaning of “moral” and how to know such a morality.

  Morality does not mean “whatever God commands,” although in most religions, many of the precepts are indeed moral.

  Morality does not mean “whatever is legal,” although in most countries, many of the laws are indeed moral.

  Morality does not mean “whatever the majority decides,” although a large group can sometimes vote for what is moral.

  Morality does not mean, “whatever appears expedient or necessary at the moment.” Whims and range-of-the-moment decisions are not made with rational moral judgment.

  The correct morality, or the good, is all that which is suitable to the life and joy of a rational being. Morality is self-evident in the nature of man. Morality stems from the fact that existence is what it is and that man is what he is. And it does not matter how many people believe differently. Popular sentiments and ideas aren’t necessarily true.

  COLLECTIVE ACTION HAS NO UNIQUE MORAL AUTHORITY

  Businessman Garrett Gunderson described this principle, “It is also important for us to realize that collective action has no unique moral authority. In other words, fifty million people saying a dumb thing doesn’t make it any less dumb. True principles exist regardless of whether or not we are aware of them or believe in them.”

  [24]

  “Moral Authority”: The principle states that a group of people, no matter how large, has no unique moral authority. In many cases the majority does, indeed, carry unique authority as seen in many democratic institutions or tribal actions. The authority of the majority to carry out its will can be enforced by brute strength of numbers or through the action of peaceful democratic processes such as voting. (If the majority votes for slavery, it’s still wrong.) However, the idea here is that the collective has no unique moral authority. This means the collective has no authority over the establishment and defining of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil. “Mainstream” thought, if such a thing can exist, is not an ultimate source of truth. In other words, contrary to the old song, fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong. Reality is what it is regardless of what any number of people wish it to be.

  “Unique”: A large number of people can recognize the truth and advocate it. But, in that case, the truth is still simply the truth which happens to be recognized by a number of individuals. The truth they advocate gives them moral authority, but increasing the number of individuals by any amount does not add to or detract from the moral authority that would already be had by a single individual who is advocating true principles.

  Some things are true whether you believe them or not. It doesn’t matter if you, your President, your church, or your neighbors think the sun revolves around the earth—belief doesn’t change reality. The amount of people who believe an idea does not affect whether that idea is true or false, merely its popularity.

  RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST

  We’ve identified our ultimate goal as the furtherance of lives filled with joy. Such a goal requires us to recognize whose life it is that we seek to protect and enhance—our own. Thus, if we choose to keep living, we must recognize the morality of rational self-interest.

  Man’s primary motivating force begins with self-interest.

  This principle stems from the fact that for those who choose to live, each individual’s own life is logically his own ultimate value. Every other decision is based on that foundation.

  Scottish economist Adam Smith famously laid some groundwork for this principle in 1776, with his description of “self-love.” The principle of “self-love,” he explains, is not displayed in force or deception, but in persuasion and exchange:

  “But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer . . . . It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

  [25]

  Adam Smith

  [iii]

  In other words, a man’s self-interest is one of the primary and most powerful motivators to inspire men to action. The baker and the butcher do not bake bread and prepare meats to be charitable. They do so to exchange with others and create wealth.

  Rational self-interest does not hold pleasurable feelings as the standard of value, but man’s life. This means that whims do not amount to self-interest. There is never a conflict of interest between rational men because rational men do not expect the unearned. And since one’s rational self-interest is employed in improving and enjoying one’s life, then self-interest must be counted as a moral virtue.
/>
  The Founders recognized that man’s pursuit of his own life (i.e. his own happiness) was a natural and moral phenomenon. Jefferson wrote that, “If we are made in some degree for others, yet in a greater are we made for ourselves. It were contrary to feeling & indeed ridiculous to suppose that a man had less right in himself than one of his neighbors or indeed all of them put together.”

  [26] He recognized that not only does man exist for his own life, but that the claims of others, no matter how many, do not outweigh a man’s claim on himself.

  When rational self-interest is examined as a code of morality, it can be described as egoism. Biddle explained that every individual ought to act in their own best interest and ought to benefit from their own moral actions. Since humans have free will, they can choose to live or not. If they choose to live, then life is their ultimate value, and the actions required to sustain that life must be considered moral.

  [27] Egoism can be thought of as the view that you should derive benefit from what you do every day. It’s okay to work towards your own happiness. It’s more than okay, it’s a moral imperative.

  ISN’T THAT SELFISH?

  It is vital to distinguish between egoism and hedonism. Hedonism holds desires and pleasures as the standard of value, and feelings as the source of truth. However, many actions that might make you feel good for a while are not life-promoting (i.e. not in your self-interest). It might feel good for a while to get high on drugs, but that action is not going to promote and enhance your life. You can cheat on your spouse and get some pleasure, but if it destroys your integrity and self-esteem (as it surely will) it is not good for you. A ballerina might get pleasure from binging on ice cream and Twinkies all day, but if that action causes her to gain weight, lose energy, and ruin her career it is not in her self-interest. Murderers, robbers, swindlers, and embezzlers are not acting in their self-interest—and none of them are happy, even before they get caught.

  Then how do we know what is in our best self-interest? It can be hard work. We have to turn to the facts of reality to discover which values to pursue. Biddle gives us an outline of how to proceed, explaining that we need “both long-range and wide-range guidance: long-range guidance to account for the span of our lifetime, and wide-range guidance to account for the broad spectrum of our needs.” To know if an action is good or bad we have to “project both the physical and the psychological consequences, and not only with regard to the present, but also with regard to the more distant future.”

  [28]

  It is unfortunate that the word “selfish” has a negative denotation, because to be interested in one’s own welfare is good and proper, and the bedrock of moral action. The behaviors commonly associated with selfish behavior are in opposition to concern for one’s well-being. In fact, such behaviors typically show disregard for one’s rational self-interest; they are actions of self-destruction rather than self-preservation, actions that lead to misery rather than joy, self-less rather than self-ish. They are also typically characterized by a lack of appreciation for the value of others—a violation of the principle that we will discuss later that states that People Are Assets.

  FORCE DESTROYS FREEDOM AND PROSPERITY

  [29]

  In order to live as human beings and pursue our rational self-interest in the furtherance of our life, we have to be free to act on our own judgment. The only thing that can stop us from doing so (wild animals and freak accidents aside) is other people. The only way they can do so is by using physical force. This involves the branch of philosophy known as politics.

  Politics: the fourth branch of philosophy which seeks to answer the question, “How should I interact with my fellow men?”

  The answer is, “Through any means except force.”

  Even a small child recognizes force easily. Watch a child, even a toddler, react when a person takes an action that interferes with their choice and thwarts their desire. A sibling takes a toy; a parent turns off a movie; a child may even get angry when thinking that an inanimate object (e.g. a doorknob or a seatbelt) is uncooperative.

  It’s easy to recognize force in tyrannical governments. Ethnic cleansings, unjust imprisonments, and mass executions are fairly easy to spot. In other ways, force can be a bit more difficult to identify.

  Physical force is the use or threat of physical harm to influence an individual to an action he would not have otherwise chosen.

  Suppose you were walking to the store for the purpose of using your money to buy some groceries when you are suddenly held up by a mugger. He points a gun at your head saying, “Give me your wallet or you die.” Now you are unable, if you want to live, to continue to act according to your plan. To avoid getting shot, you must hand over your wallet. You are no longer going grocery shopping in either case. By placing a gun between you and your goal, the thief is forcing you to act contrary to your judgment—your means of survival. Yes, you still have agency. You can still choose what to think and do, but your choices have been artificially curtailed because now you must choose between alternatives that would not exist were it not for the threat of force.

  If the thief leaves you alive, you’re are free to continue to act on your own judgment, but not with respect to the stolen money. This won’t thwart your life totally, but it will impede you partially. If you had your money, you could either spend or save it. Without it, you can do neither, and to that degree your life is now restricted. Thus it is that force destroys freedom and prosperity.

  Biddle stated the principle this way: “To whatever degree physical force (or the credible threat thereof) is used against a person, it stops him from acting on his judgment; the greater the force, the less human a life he can live.”

  [30]

  As bad as physical force is, there is a worse form of force. Without this second form, physical force is harder to sustain. The second form is mental force, or deception. Proof of this can be seen in that no dictatorship was ever able to be maintained for any significant period without establishing censorship.

  [31]

  Why is deception so evil? Because it destroys man’s ability to act on his own judgment—his agency; it doesn’t merely restrict his agency as the mugger did, but it destroys his agency.

  Deception can also be viewed as indirect physical force. Suppose you buy a used car and the salesman lies to you about the condition of the engine. The car you drive away in is not the same as the car you thought you purchased. Thus, you have been forced against your knowledge and will to do something that you would otherwise not have chosen.

  Whereas physical force violates agency by restricting the choices an individual can make, that individual can still make a choice based on the facts of reality. If I’m pointing a gun at your head, you can still choose your actions, though if your desire is to continue living, those choices will be severely limited. Mental force is evil because it doesn’t just violate agency, it destroys it. It doesn’t limit our decisions based on reality; it takes away any possible ability to choose anything based on reality. If I hold out the good in my right hand and the evil in my left, but I tell you the opposite—that evil is in my right and good is in my left—what have I done? I have removed both your ability and opportunity to make a decision based on the truth. Or what if I hold out my hands and tell you that they are both holding good or holding evil? How can you choose? You can’t! This is the only way to destroy the ability of someone to make decisions on what’s best for them.

  And it doesn’t matter who’s doing the deceiving. If I’m deceiving you, or your mayor’s deceiving you, or your mother’s deceiving you, or even if you are even self-deceived—it doesn’t matter! The end result is the same. It’s scary because you never know when you are deceived. That’s the definition of “deceived;” you don’t know what you don’t know.

  On the Jefferson memorial is carved an astounding sentiment in powerful language of the type that is rarely heard today: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyrann
y over the mind of man.”

  [32] He wrote that in a letter in the year 1800 referring to his fight against certain religionists who wanted to establish a particular form of Christianity throughout the country. This is the conviction of a man who understands the power, the purpose, and the necessity of liberty of conscience—of a free mind, not just a free body.

  We see now that man must be free to act on his judgment to live his life and achieve his values and happiness. Thus, in a social context, man needs a moral principle—a life-promoting and life-protecting law—to protect him from those who would seek to initiate or threaten the use of force against him. That principle becomes the concept of rights.

  Review

  Q1: What is the purpose of your life?

  Q2: What is the difference between a value and a virtue? What are some examples?

  Q3: Why are values necessary for life? What other values do you personally pursue?

  Q4: What is the standard by which a value must be judged? Give an example of an irrational value.

  Q5: Why do you need morality?

  Q6: What is the problem with having a subjective morality?

  Q7: What is the difference between hedonism and rational self-interest?

  Q8: What is force? What are some ways in which you have used force against others?

  Q9: Why does force destroy freedom and prosperity?