Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. -- George Washington
Progressives insist that times have changed. We need a more interventionist government, and politicians and activists of all parties frequently employ moralistic arguments and appeals to Christian virtues to make their case. This is a logical misstep.
Charity is a moral virtue God demands of His followers. Progressives commit a category error when trying to apply moral virtues to the congeries of soulless, faceless government bureaucracies.
A corporate entity or government cannot by definition possess virtues. Only human beings can.
In fact, discussing virtues and morality in the context of government turns the Utilitarianism vs. Deontological ethics debate on its head.
Christianity is a deontological religion. We owe duties to God and to our fellow man.
Utilitarianism, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is “the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good.”
Utilitarianism is logically coherent, but it can lead to very immoral acts: Final solutions, euthanasia, telling individuals where to live and what job they will have.
When discussing what the role of government in peoples lives should be, liberals or progressives argue from the deontological point of view (We have a duty to help the poor!), while conservatives and libertarians argue from the Utilitarian corner (Do what works. Stop doing what does not)
This entire discussion on the role of government is premised on a false belief: If government does not dole out mercy, none shall be doled out. This is nonsense. We are a very giving nation, and reasonable arguments can be made that the multi-trillion dollar war on poverty has destroyed our cities and the nuclear family, consigning even more people to a permanent underclass.
So should government be deontological or utilitarian?
Both. Lawmakers and government bureaucrats have a duty not to God nor citizen, but to the US Constitution. That is the only guide to right and wrong in governance. Government at all levels could also use a shot of utilitiarianism, within the framework of constitutionality. Simply put: If it doesn’t work, stop doing it.
German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord is said to have made the following observation in 1933:
When discussing what the role of government in peoples lives should be, liberals or progressives argue from the deontological point of view (We have a duty to help the poor!), while conservatives and libertarians argue from the Utilitarian corner (Do what works. Stop doing what does not)
This entire discussion on the role of government is premised on a false belief: If government does not dole out mercy, none shall be doled out. This is nonsense. We are a very giving nation, and reasonable arguments can be made that the multi-trillion dollar war on poverty has destroyed our cities and the nuclear family, consigning even more people to a permanent underclass.
So should government be deontological or utilitarian?
Both. Lawmakers and government bureaucrats have a duty not to God nor citizen, but to the US Constitution. That is the only guide to right and wrong in governance. Government at all levels could also use a shot of utilitiarianism, within the framework of constitutionality. Simply put: If it doesn’t work, stop doing it.
German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord is said to have made the following observation in 1933:
"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities.
Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"My purpose of this post is not to skewer Obama, but I think he fits in the clever and lazy category. This would not necessarily be a bad thing if he had the experience of a Reagan, Eisenhower, or Truman. Good advisors would also help him out, but instead, like the vast majority of the political class, his minions are in the stupid and industrious category, compounding our troubles.
