|
Send to a friend
Morals and the Welfare State, Part 2
by F.A. Harper, October 2000
THE DECALOGUE
serves as a guide to moral conduct which, if violated, brings upon the
violator a commensurate penalty. There may be other guides to moral
conduct which one might wish to add to the Golden Rule and the Decalogue,
as supplements or substitutes. But they serve as the basis on which others
are built. Their essence, in one form or another, seems to run through all
great religions. That, I believe, is not a happenstance, because if we
embrace them as a guide to our conduct, it will be both morally and
economically sound.
This third postulate embodies what
are judged to be the principles which should guide individual conduct as
infallibly as the compass should guide the mariner. “Being
practical” is a common popular guide to conduct; principles are
scorned, if not forgotten. Those who scorn principles assert that it is
foolish to concern ourselves with them; that it is hopeless to expect their
complete adoption by everyone. But does this fact make a principle
worthless? Are we to conclude that the moral code against murder is
worthless because of its occasional violation? Or that the compass is
worthless because not everyone pursues to the ultimate the direction
which it indicates? Or that the law of gravity is made impractical or
inoperative by someone walking off a cliff and meeting death because of
his ignorance of this principle? No. A principle remains a principle in
spite of its being ignored or violated — or even unknown. A principle,
like a compass, gives one a better sense of direction, if he is wise enough
to know and to follow its guidance.
Moral Postulate No. 4
Moral principles are not subject
to compromise. The Golden Rule and the Decalogue, as representing
moral principles, are precise and strict. They are not a code of
convenience. A principle can be broken, but it cannot be bent.
If the Golden Rule and the Decalogue
were to be accepted as a code of convenience, to be laid aside or modified
whenever “necessity seems to justify it” (whenever, that is,
one desires to act in violation of them), they would not then be serving as
moral guides. A moral guide which is to be followed only when one would
so conduct himself anyhow, in its absence, has no effect on his conduct
and is not a guide to him at all.
The unbending rule of a moral
principle can be illustrated by some simple applications. According to one
Commandment, it is wholly wrong to steal all your neighbor’s cow;
it is also wholly wrong to steal half your neighbor’s cow, not half
wrong to steal half your neighbor’s cow. Robbing a bank is wrong in
principle, whether the thief makes off with a million dollars or a hundred
dollars or one cent. A person can rob a bank of half its money, but in the
sense of moral principle there is no way to half rob a bank; you either rob
it or you do not rob it.
In like manner, the law of gravity is
precise and invisible. One either acts in harmony with this law or he does
not. There is no sense in saying that one has only half observed the law of
gravity if he falls off a cliff only half as high as another cliff off which
he might have fallen.
Moral laws are strict. They rule
without flexibility. They know not the language of man; they are not
conversant with him in the sense of compassion. They employ no
man-made devices like the suspended sentence —
“Guilty” or “Not guilty” is the verdict of
judgment by a moral principle.
As moral guides, the Golden Rule and
the Decalogue are not evil and dangerous things, like a painkilling drug, to
be taken in cautious moderation, if at all. Presuming them to be the basic
guides of what is right and good for civilized man, one cannot overindulge
in them. Good need not be practiced in moderation.
Moral Postulate No. 5
Good ends cannot be attained by
evil means. As stated in the second postulate, there is a force
controlling cause and consequence which no mortal can alter, in spite of
any position of influence or power which he may hold. Cause and
consequence are linked inseparably.
An evil begets an evil consequence; a
good, a good consequence. Good intentions cannot alter this relationship.
Nor can ignorance of the consequence change its form. Nor can words. For
one to say, after committing an evil act, “I’m sorry, I made a
mistake” changes not one iota the consequence of the act;
repentance, at best, can serve only to prevent repetition of the evil act,
and perhaps assure the repenter a more preferred place in a Hereafter. But
repentance alone does not bring back to life a murdered person, nor return
the loot to the one who was robbed. Nor does it, I believe, fully obliterate
the scars of evil on the doer himself.
Nor does saying, “He told me to
do it” change the consequence of an evil act into a good one. For an
evildoer to assert, “But it was the law of my government, the
decree of my ruler” fails to dethrone God or to frustrate the rule of
natural law.
A vicious concept
The belief that good ends are
attainable through evil means is one of the most vicious concepts of the
ages. The political blueprint, The Prince, written around the
year 1500 by Machiavelli, outlined this notorious doctrine. And for the
past century it has been part and parcel of the kit of tools used by the
Marxian communist-socialists to mislead people. Its use probably is as old
as the conflict between temptation and conscience, because it affords a
seemingly rational and pleasant detour around the inconveniences of
one’s conscience.
We know how power-hungry persons
have gained political control over others by claiming that they somehow
possess a special dispensation from God to do good through the exercise of
means which our moral code identifies as evil. Thus arises a multiple
standard of morals. It is the device by which immoral persons attempt to
discredit the Golden Rule and the Decalogue and make them inoperative.
Yet if one will stop to ponder the
question just a little, he must surely see the unimpeachable logic of this
postulate: Good ends cannot be attained by evil means. This is because the
end pre-exists in the means, just as in the biological field we know that
the seed of continued likeness pre-exists in the parent. Likewise in the
moral realm, there is a similar moral reproduction wherein like begets
like. This precludes the possibility of evil means leading to good ends.
Good begets good; evil, evil. Immoral means cannot beget a good end, any
more than snakes can beget roses.
The concept of the welfare state can
now be tested against the background of these five postulates: (1)
Harmony exists between moral principles and wise economic practices. (2)
There is a universal law of cause and effect, even in the areas of morals
and economics. (3) A basic moral code exists in the form of the Golden
Rule and the Decalogue. (4) These moral guides are of an uncompromising
nature. (5) Good ends are attainable only through good means.
Moral right to private property
Not all the Decalogue, as has been
said, is directly relevant to the issue of the welfare state. Its program is
an economic one, and the only parts of the moral code that are directly and
specifically relevant are these: (1) Thou shalt not steal. (2) Thou shalt not
covet.
Steal what? Covet what? Private
property, of course. What else could I steal from you, or covet of what is
yours? I cannot steal from you or covet what you do not own as private
property. As Dr. D. Elton Trueblood has aptly said, “Stealing is evil
because ownership is good.” Thus we find that the
individual’s right to private property is an unstated assumption
which underlies the Decalogue. Otherwise these two admonitions would be
empty of either purpose or meaning.
The right to have and to hold private
property is not to be confused with the recovery of stolen property. If
someone steals your car, it is still — by this moral right —
your car rather than his; and for you to repossess it is merely to bring its
presence back into harmony with its ownership. The same reasoning
applies to the recovery of equivalent value if the stolen item itself is no
longer returnable; and it applies to the recompense for damage done to
one’s own property by trespass or other willful destruction of
private property. These means of protecting the possession of private
property, and its use, are part of the mechanisms used to protect the
moral right to private property.
F.A. Harper was the founder of the Institute for Humane
Studies. This article originally appeared in volume 1 of Essays on
Liberty, published in 1952 by The Foundation for Economic Education
in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York.
Send to a friend
back to top
Subscribe to Freedom Daily.
|
