What should be the purpose of the state?

[The Engineer]

I've recently found this thread on the ethics board: http://www.christianforums.com/t7739582/

It's about whether it's okay to legislate morality or not. I find the topic interesting, but I don't think you can give a satisfying answer to the question of the thread without first answering the question of what the state (I'm not talking about any specific state here) is supposed to do.

Imagine a discussion between an Iranian and a western politician. Iran is a theocracy, so the Iranian would, of course, say that it's perfectly okay for the state to transform religious codes of conduct (which are a form of moral codes) into law. The western politician, on the other hand, would likely disagree, because he's working for a secularized state, hence doesn't think the state should enforce religious values*. After this exchange of statements, the discussion would stop dead unless they started to compare their ideas of the state.

So, what do you think should be the purpose of the state? Should the state protect the freedom of its inhabitants, first and foremost, or the security? Should it enforce religious or moral values? Should it protect the rights of the individual at all costs, or just care about the greater good?

*I didn't want to specify the state. First of all, I don't want a discussion about whether Spain is actually secularized, second it doesn't matter that much, because all western states are perfectly secularized compared to Iran.

 

[twinc]

I've recently found this thread on the ethics board: http://www.christianforums.com/t7739582/

It's about whether it's okay to legislate morality or not. I find the topic interesting, but I don't think you can give a satisfying answer to the question of the thread without first answering the question of what the state (I'm not talking about any specific state here) is supposed to do.

Imagine a discussion between an Iranian and a western politician. Iran is a theocracy, so the Iranian would, of course, say that it's perfectly okay for the state to transform religious codes of conduct (which are a form of moral codes) into law. The western politician, on the other hand, would likely disagree, because he's working for a secularized state, hence doesn't think the state should enforce religious values*. After this exchange of statements, the discussion would stop dead unless they started to compare their ideas of the state.

So, what do you think should be the purpose of the state? Should the state protect the freedom of its inhabitants, first and foremost, or the security? Should it enforce religious or moral values? Should it protect the rights of the individual at all costs, or just care about the greater good?

*I didn't want to specify the state. First of all, I don't want a discussion about whether Spain is actually secularized, second it doesn't matter that much, because all western states are perfectly secularized compared to Iran.

via google see [State of the Nation]by Ken Ham - twinc

 

[Eudaimonist]

Should it protect the rights of the individual at all costs

This above is closest to my view.

I'm not certain that I will agree that this should be done at all costs. For instance, it shouldn't sacrifice the continued protection of rights to the present protection of rights. For this reason, I think that some minimalistic amount of taxation (which I would still regard as a violation of rights) may be temporarily justified as long as it keeps a free society from collapsing into a "state" where rights can't be adequately protected.

IMV, it's not about security over freedom, and it's not about utilitarian calculations. It's about protecting the natural right to individual liberty as consistently as it can over time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

I can't imagine a state where morality isn't legislated to some degree. Don't steal, don't murder, etc. Now, what makes something moral is by definition personal, which means a person can follow the laws of don't steal, don't murder while personally believing one should have the freedom -- and even could be a better person -- to steal or murder.

So it becomes a degree of how far the line goes, not whether or not morality is legislated (or more precisely, certain actions are restricted which overlap with specified morals). With theocracies, it's not so much a matter of "God said it, that's that," but there's some degree of believing that that a person who, e.g., drinks alcohol or women who aren't covered properly, becomes an intrinsically bad person by committing these acts, and by extension these bad people would harm society in some way.

Western secular and democratic modes really add a subtle element. They hold that the freedom to choose your own morality is better than any type of morality being imposed, even if these moralities are the "correct" ones. With this thinking, it's better to have the freedom to choose to drink alcohol or not, or cover yourself or not, or whatever or not, than it is to be forced by law not to do these things. And if people were *forced*, i.e., explicitly told "thou shalt not," this very institutionalized act of telling somehow affects the individual to actually want to do it even more. It's called psychological reactance, and it happens in any simple relationship between two people when one person tells another, "you shouldn't do that!" Defenses are raised, and a sense of "you can't tell me what to do!" sets in. It's this spirit of reactance that undermines the "thou shalt nots" of theocracies and extensively restrictive governments, such as those that put too many personal morals into legislation. The people might obey externally, but they're still (and perhaps even more) rotten people because of this repression. When you suppress an inclination, it only bottles up, and that's what happens in restrictive (e.g., theocratic, or social conservative) governments.

But this shouldn't be meant to say that we shouldn't limit things like stealing or murder, because these things directly affect other people. It's when we're talking about morality and how one should live that we should allow more freedom for people to choose -- because if we enforce this morality, the tendency is much more in the direction of rebelling against it. People need the breathing room to choose their own selves. And this also means that every democracy needs an incredible amount of education subsidies, or else people won't know what is good or not; as Aristotle said, you have to train people in the good, preferably when they're young. But alas, here in America we believe in lots of freedom, a few ridiculous restrictions, and terrible education. Which means we're opening up the beast by letting freedom reign without implanting the ideal of the good life.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think equal liberty is primary, and other things such as security and rights are there for the protection and preservation of that liberty. I would have to define liberty moral though.

A recognition of equality in another should lead one to understand that just as you think you are correct, another will think they are correct. If you think you can legislate your personal morality and impose it on another, then they would be allowed to legislate their morality by the same maxim if the roles were reversed. This then makes law a matter of majority tyranny, or military power, not truth or morality. I'm sure both sides can see the danger in that.

Which means we're opening up the beast by letting freedom reign without implanting the ideal of the good life.

How do we differentiate ourselves from the religious fanatics? How do we make sure we educate, not indoctrinate?

Don't we need to teach how to think, not just what to think? What if we are are wrong, and the values we give our children are wrong? Shouldn't they be given the freedom to reject our values?

 

[Received]

How do we differentiate ourselves from the religious fanatics? How do we make sure we educate, not indoctrinate?

Don't we need to teach how to think, not just what to think? What if we are are wrong, and the values we give our children are wrong? Shouldn't they be given the freedom to reject our values?

There's no such thing as teaching them about free thought without this very attempt being against free thought -- i.e., we're "indoctrinating" them with free thought. Unless, of course, we connect free thought to being happy, and convince them that being happy is what life is all about. And that relates to the Good: the Good connects to virtues, of which rationality is one. IOW, I think we agree.

But I think it's essential to connect our actions to the Good (speaking Aristotelean-wise). Freedom of thought is secondary to happiness (flourishing, Eudaimonia), which is what the virtues aim at, of which free thinking is one. I'd rather be happy than free, which taken to an extreme is a contradictory statement: I can't be fully happy unless I'm also free.

 

[quatona]

I've recently found this thread on the ethics board: http://www.christianforums.com/t7739582/

It's about whether it's okay to legislate morality or not. I find the topic interesting, but I don't think you can give a satisfying answer to the question of the thread without first answering the question of what the state (I'm not talking about any specific state here) is supposed to do.

Yes - which again depends on your idea what sort of community you want. Which is typically documented in the constitution of said nation.

Nor to make too fine a point of it - but it seems to me that envisioning a certain sort of community and then developing finer tuned ideas as to what sort of rules are necessary to create this community and make it work is not the same as legalislating morality (which, to me, appears to approach the thing vice versa).

Imagine a discussion between an Iranian and a western politician. Iran is a theocracy, so the Iranian would, of course, say that it's perfectly okay for the state to transform religious codes of conduct (which are a form of moral codes) into law. The western politician, on the other hand, would likely disagree, because he's working for a secularized state, hence doesn't think the state should enforce religious values*. After this exchange of statements, the discussion would stop dead unless they started to compare their ideas of the state.

Yes. However, I think you tend to superimpose your (and mine) priorities upon your hypothetical Iranian here: He doesn´t start with a basic idea of what a state should be - he starts from supposedly divine moral commands and lets them determine the laws, which again will form the community.

So, what do you think should be the purpose of the state? Should the state protect the freedom of its inhabitants, first and foremost, or the security?

Since the inhabitants have an interest in both freedom and security, the "state" representing its inhabitants should do both and find a good balance.

Should it enforce religious or moral values?

No.

Should it protect the rights of the individual at all costs, or just care about the greater good?

I´m not sure I understand what you are asking. If it were to protect the rights of the individual at all costs, the protection of individual rights would be the greater good, wouldn´t it?

Personally, I tend towards socialism - i.e. I tend to think that individual freedom (while being a great value) should not be the sole and highest priority that trumps everything else. If you want individual freedom to be the sole priority, I don´t understand why you´d even need a "state" (community): anarchy would be the appropriate state.

 

[quatona]

How do we differentiate ourselves from the religious fanatics? How do we make sure we educate, not indoctrinate?

Don't we need to teach how to think, not just what to think? What if we are are wrong, and the values we give our children are wrong? Shouldn't they be given the freedom to reject our values?

In that we allow and encourage our children to expose themselves to a great variety of ideas different from our own.

 

[Paradoxum]

There's no such thing as teaching them about free thought without this very attempt being against free thought -- i.e., we're "indoctrinating" them with free thought. Unless, of course, we connect free thought to being happy, and convince them that being happy is what life is all about. And that relates to the Good: the Good connects to virtues, of which rationality is one. IOW, I think we agree.

Well I meant critical thinking skill more than free though specifically. Critical thinking is a skill, not just a value. So, teach them the value of free though, but also give them the ability to think for themselves too, and so the ability to reject free thought as a good value.

But I think it's essential to connect our actions to the Good (speaking Aristotelean-wise). Freedom of thought is secondary to happiness (flourishing, Eudaimonia), which is what the virtues aim at, of which free thinking is one. I'd rather be happy than free, which taken to an extreme is a contradictory statement: I can't be fully happy unless I'm also free.

I don't tend to think in terms of virtue ethics, but I'm not sure if there is anything I disagree with here.

In that we allow and encourage our children to expose themselves to a great variety of ideas different from our own.

I guess it is quite hard to encourage children to consider ideas that you think are false?

 

[quatona]

I guess it is quite hard to encourage children to consider ideas that you think are false?

Well, I didn´t say it was easy, but then again I don´t think it´s THAT hard. Why would you think so?
It´s what we are doing ourselves here all the time.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well, I didn´t say it was easy, but then again I don´t think it´s THAT hard. Why would you think so?

Because I wouldn't want my children to become religious because they didn't have all the information or critical thinking

It´s what we are doing ourselves here all the time.

I trust myself now somewhat to be skeptical. I trust children and some other types of people less so.

 

[Received]

You can't teach skepticism without negating skepticism. When you say, "be critical! Question authority!" this statement itself is assumed to be uncritically accepted, based on authority. The only way around this is to look to the pragmatic roots: why question authority or be skeptical? Because it must in some way help you out, make you happy, in the end. So it's a question, then, not of questioning authority and skepticism, but of being happy.

Which brings me to my next point: we never seem to complain about propaganda that actually helps people out. It's always the propaganda that has bad perceived effects. After all, the term propaganda implies propagating your ideas into another person, and not all propagated ideas are created equally.

 

[quatona]

Because I wouldn't want my children to become religious because they didn't have all the information or critical thinking

Well, being exposed to views different from my own is essential part of getting all the information.
Whereas helping them to develop critical thinking abilities is indeed one of my foremost responsibilities, and of course the basis on which I´d encourage them to encounter word views different from my own.

I trust myself now somewhat to be skeptical. I trust children and some other types of people less so.

Well, children and junveniles go through all sorts of phases and periods in which their decisions aren´t based on sufficient information, sufficient critical thinking abilities and other manifestations of incompetence (and, to a certain degree, each of us still does so). IOW, they do a lot of stupid, immature things. This, in my opinion, is necessary part of growing up, of maturing and is not a problem - as long as these decisions aren´t irreversible.
IIRC, Paradoxum, you yourself have been excessively exposed to religious fundamentalism - and yet you have, as a young adult, become a person who explores critical thinking to the best of your abilities.

 

[quatona]

You can't teach skepticism without negating skepticism. When you say, "be critical! Question authority!" this statement itself is assumed to be uncritically accepted, based on authority.

That´s nonsense and a category error, Received. Of course you can encourage skepticism towards any doctrine including skepticism.
Even if we´d call skepticism a doctrine, it´s still a doctrine on a meta-level (second order doctrine, if you will): It´s a doctrine how to deal with doctrines of the first order.
"Put everything anyone tells you to scrutinity including that which I am telling you (and even this my encouragement itself)" is not a self-negation. Your skeptical objections towards skepticism are living proof of this: You are asking "Why?" - and that´s skepticism at its best.
Skepticism is, after all, but a method how to deal with doctrines rather than a doctrine itself.

Which brings me to my next point: we never seem to complain about propaganda that actually helps people out.

I seem to do that a lot. Just because it´s propaganda, no matter what for or against.

After all, the term propaganda implies propagating your ideas into another person, and not all propagated ideas are created equally.

"Propaganda" signifies a very special, manipulative way of offering your ideas to other persons.

 

[Received]

That´s nonsense and a category error, Received. Of course you can encourage skepticism towards any doctrine including skepticism.
Even if we´d call skepticism a doctrine, it´s still a doctrine on a meta-level (second order doctrine, if you will): It´s a doctrine how to deal with doctrines of the first order.
"Put everything anyone tells you to scrutinity including that which I am telling you (and even this my encouragement itself)" is not a self-negation. Your skeptical objections towards skepticism are living proof of this: You are asking "Why?" - and that´s skepticism at its best.
Skepticism is, after all, but a method how to deal with doctrines rather than a doctrine itself.

Still, as a doctrine (which functions as a meta-doctrine), it's still a doctrine, therefore it negates itself by being propagated.

But let's stop for a minute. I'll call it an impasse, whatever. But we could get around this problem (as I see it) if we're somehow hard wired to be skeptical. Then we could say something like, "be skeptical!" and the receiving person could become skeptical without being indoctrinated so long as this doctrine is unveiled as "within" him (i.e., hard wiring), rather than something that's implanted in him by another source.

There, I've solved my own problem.

I seem to do that a lot. Just because it´s propaganda, no matter what for or against.

quatona, whenever I imply lots of people, please take yourself out of it unless you think you're actually guilty of committing fallacies like lots of people tend to do. (And I intend that as a compliment.)

"Propaganda" signifies a very special, manipulative way of offering your ideas to other persons.

Well.

I don't see it that way. I think "propaganda" becomes "whatever stuff that's implanted that I don't like," which is equivalent to saying, "what I see as bad." So I just jump to the core and go with the historical meaning (which, I agree, isn't how the word is often used): to propagate, to implant, etc.

 

[quatona]

Still, as a doctrine (which functions as a meta-doctrine), it's still a doctrine, therefore it negates itself by being propagated.

No. A person who is being skeptical towards skepticism doesn´t negate but actually affirms skepticism and takes it to a new level. And I as a skeptic would welcome him to do so.
That´s because skepticism is not about what you should believe but about the method how to arrive at your beliefs. Unlike a doctrine, it doesn´t anticipate the result.

I don't see it that way. I think "propaganda" becomes "whatever stuff that's implanted that I don't like," which is equivalent to saying, "what I see as bad." So I just jump to the core and go with the historical meaning (which, I agree, isn't how the word is often used): to propagate, to implant, etc.

I´m afraid I don´t understand what you were trying to say in your previous post now that I know which special meaning you were using the word "propaganda" in.

Anyway, I personally don´t think there´s anything wrong with offering your ideas to someone else (even if I personally don´t like your ideas). If you wish to call such offers "propaganda" the term loses its negative connotation for me. I´m fine with "propaganda" in your use of the word.