Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Myth of the Greater Good
Topic Started: Feb 27 2012, 12:51 AM (572 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
In the following, the basis of rationalization is emotionalism. I may have cut too much out of the original so you may want to follow the link.

The Myth of the Greater Good
Quote:
 
I—and most other people, I assume—grew up being taught that the end doesn’t justify the means. Basically, this is an injunction not to rationalize one’s behavior while using other people as mere means to one’s ends.

Most people apply that principle day to day. If you want at an item on a supermarket shelf and someone is standing in the way, few of us would think it right to shove that person aside....

A utilitarian (or any other sort of consequentialist) might say that greater good, happiness, or utility would be achieved by waiting than by shoving.... But since interpersonal comparisons of subjective utility are impossible—not only is there no unit of measurement, in principle there’s nothing to measure—that claim has no content....

The “Greater Good”

If “goods” are incommensurable, then one of them cannot be said to be “greater” than others. Thus acting for the “greater good” is without meaning. “[T]his lack of commensurability eliminates all possibility of reference for the expression ‘greater good’ as the consequentialist uses this expression,” natural-law philosopher Germain Grisez writes.

So why wouldn’t we shove the elderly, frail person aside even if we were certain to be unobserved? We abstain from that “efficient” means to an unobjectionable and perhaps worthy end because we have a sense that it would be an injustice and that injustice is to be avoided. ...we know that the act would be wrong because it is wrong to use another person as a mere means to our ends. (In a sense we’re all the children of Athens.)

So why is the principle that the end doesn’t justify the means absent from most discussion of government policy? Why are political measures routinely defended on the sole basis that they will bring about some good consequence that supposedly outweighs the costs (from the perspective of those who propose them)?....

In all these cases and more, those who proffer the government policy seem to think that all they need do is identify a consequence as the “greater good” and the discussion is over. The end justifies the means....

Costs and Victims

But, first of all, there are always costs to—and therefore victims of—any government action. Government is force, and “[c]oercive intervention . . . signifies per se that the individual or individuals coerced would not have done what they are now doing were it not for the intervention” (Murray Rothbard, Power and Market)....

All those who are forced to bear the costs are treated by the government and the special-interest groups it empowers as mere means to other people’s ends; that is, they are treated as less than human.

The proponents of such measures never tell us why the benefits they aim for are more important than the benefits other people will have to do without. But of course they couldn’t tell us: The benefits are incommensurable.

Lost Freedom

Furthermore, apart from the material loss, the victims’ progressive loss of freedom is real both in the immediate instance as well as with respect to the precedent set for future government action (the slippery slope). Intervention begets intervention as policy makers try to clean up the mess their previous actions created....

Means and ends of course are intimately related. The end determines the array of relevant means. But that is not the end of the story. In selecting from that array, considerations apart from the end are highly relevant—such as the injunction never to use another person as a mere means. To ignore those considerations is to mock human dignity and countenance the slave principle.

That’s basic to how we ordinarily think about morality. But politicians and those who leech off their power flout this insight as a matter of course.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
Well Chris, the subject matter becomes more relevant each year as the country increases in population and property rights in particular come under attack.

In the news is the case of a local family who were one of the founding families in the valley. As southern Nevada boomed in jobs and population, this family that has immense land holdings formed a water and sewer company. The purpose of the venture being to serve several thousand new homes they had intended to build in several developments. When the housing market soured here, the sewer and water company had no further use to the family as development of homes was no longer feasible. Rather than having thousands of paying customers for the venture, only 7% of capacity was utilized for homes that had been built. This extremely influential family has manipulated the county commissioners to propose that the county purchase the utility company from the family. And the community is funding a study now to determine the feasibility. Despite protests, the acquisition appears to be heading towards a conclusion. The community has one utility company that is profitable but passed on the opportunity to purchase the one being considered by the county, because it was a money losing white elephant. I don't believe this is an unusual example in the country, as private interests trump the interests of citizens, with a conspiratorial nature existing between elected officials and business interests.

We can debate the ethics and morals of people in these situations, but in many cases to no avail. If we point out public concern, we are met with legalese and lectures from the elected officials who dare we question their ethics. It's all for the common good that they make these decisions, and we should not question their wisdom and character. An apathy sets in among the residents when they come to a point of hopelessness and despair as their interests are superseded by the powerful. Appeals to reason and hope increasingly fall on deaf ears.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
"I don't believe this is an unusual example in the country, as private interests trump the interests of citizens, and a conspiratorial nature between elected officials and business interests."

I think, and have said elsewhere, that that crony capitalism is the inevitable unintended consequence of actions of government based on common good arguments. Such arguments tend to produce solutions that in turn become problems. Another example is found in the abortion thread where it is suggested by some of the same people who based on emotionalism advocate welfare then advocate solving the swelfare problem with abortion and sterilization of the people welfare was supposed to help.

"We can debate the ethics and morals of people in these situations, but in many cases to no avail. If we point out public concern, we are met with legalese and lectures from the elected officials who dare we question their ethics. It's all for the common good that they make these decisions, and we should not question their wisdom and character. An apathy sets in among the residents when they come to a point of hopelessness and despair as their interested are superseded by the powerful. Appeals to reason and hope increasingly fall on deaf ears."

Then it's time to replace them with those who would be ethical and moral: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends...".


Great, thoughtful post, btw!
Edited by Chris, Feb 27 2012, 03:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
If memory serves me, we had a debate here on imminent domain. One case comes to mind, where a township in New England took waterfront property away from families who had lived, farmed, were born and died on these properties for four hundred years. A large developer wanted the property for the development of condominiums. The town argued that the higher property taxes collected from the development justified their actions.

I don't recall using the term crony capitalism nor have I studied the subject, but I think this case is a form of corruption of capitalism, which in itself is repulsive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mike
Feb 27 2012, 03:34 AM
If memory serves me, we had a debate here on imminent domain. One case comes to mind, where a township in New England took waterfront property away from families who had lived, farmed, were born and died on these properties for four hundred years. A large developer wanted the property for the development of condominiums. The town argued that the higher property taxes collected from the development justified their actions.

I don't recall using the term crony capitalism nor have I studied the subject, but I think this case is a form of corruption of capitalism, which in itself is repulsive.
Agreed, Kelo v. City of New London was a case of corruption, the collusion of business and government to the detriment of home owners (crony capitalism). Obamacare is another stretch of the law, the commerce clause of the Constitution, supposedly for the common good, but written in collusion with insurance companies who stand to gain if only by an increase in customers.

Now one might argue any of these cases could be said to have ends in the common good, but the means are not, they're driven by rationalization, emotionalism, overlooking alternative means.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mike
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ * ]
I won't stray off into the healthcare debate, as tempted as I am, but do agree with you that emotion laden arguments and twisted deceptive reasons designed to appear logical conclusions are used. Whenever I attend a council meeting, my ears are alert to such tactics. I think it is a duty we all as citizens have, to rise to the podium and question the merits and arguments be presented. It's a matter of being a good steward to the resources God provided me to do just that

The elected leaders serve a higher authority than us and although He will hold them accountable, He expects us to do the same at this level. You Chris and others here may have similar or in your minds just as important an ethical charge to do the same. We must speak up and challenge this corruption.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I don't see where government always uses the policy of the ends justifying the means. It's not a black and white issue. Granted there have been some emminent domain issues that were wrong. But, to us that as an excuse to bash government is just more of the same old extremists argument for limiting government.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
"I don't see where government always uses the policy of the ends justifying the means."

Not the argument here, here the argument is liberals emotionally rationalize government solutions to problems and thereby create more problems. It's like a self-perpetuating machine.

"It's not a black and white issue."

Exactly, and therefore requires rational problem solving.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
tomdrobin
Feb 27 2012, 09:14 AM
I don't see where government always uses the policy of the ends justifying the means. It's not a black and white issue. Granted there have been some emminent domain issues that were wrong. But, to us that as an excuse to bash government is just more of the same old extremists argument for limiting government.
Perhaps it should also be noted that most instances of the misuse of eminent domain has been done by local governments, that level of government often referred to as "closest to the people" and, to some, "social governance."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis