The relationship between anarchy and morality is absolute. Without anarchy, there can be no morality. Without morality, anarchy fails.
“Anarchy” is currently defined by contradictions, as is shown by the Oxford English Dictionary:
- A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority
- Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
These definitions are erroneous and contradictory. Both definitions contain an implicit bias: the first implies that “absence or nonrecognition or of authority” has a causal relationship with “disorder,” independent of other factors (this may be true for the ruling class, but cannot be proved as it pertains to society). The second assumes that “absolute freedom of the individual” is regarded as a “political ideal.” The latter is nonsensical, because first of all, the term ‘absolute’ is not defined-- does that mean that sociopaths inflicting pain upon innocents represents some ideal to anarchists? If so, I have yet to meet any that hold these views, though I know many anarchists. Secondly, it is contradictory, because anarchists have no “political ideal,” according to the very nature of anarchy. “Political” being defined as “of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government,” (Merriam-Webster) anarchists have no political stance. It would be similar to say that the definition of atheism is “absence of god and absolute nihilism, regarded as a religious ideal.”
They are contradictory because the first implies that anarchy is a state of disorder, and the second implies that anarchy can be considered a state of optimum order.
A thorough critical analysis requires definitions that are non-contradictory and free of implicit bias. “Anarchy” can be consistently defined as “a state of society in which there are no rulers.” In anarchy, there are decision-makers, property-owners, economic actors, and independent entities, but there are no rulers-- “rulers,” defined as individuals that claim the moral authority to initiate force over a geographic region.
This does not mean that an anarchist society is without rules. There are many instances in which society has established rules without the coercion of a higher authority. Rules exist independent of authority. When two people go on a date, there is an understanding that they should not steal from one another, or rape one another, or kill one another; and yet this expectation exists outside the influence of government. People don’t refrain from theft, rape, and murder because it is illegal. Those inclined toward theft, rape, and murder, do so despite the illicit nature of such actions. People generally abide by moral justifications for their actions, which is the reason ‘ethics’ has been such a powerful weapon wielded by coercive authority.
The definitions provided by the OED for morality are less problematic, so I have no need to render my own. Morality is defined as:
- Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
- A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society
Morality presupposes free will. This assertion is proved more thoroughly in another essay, entitled, “Morality and Free Will.” For the purposes of this article, I will assume the validity of that proof, but provide the skeletal reasoning for the sake of coherence.
If we cannot choose, we cannot be held accountable for the act of choice. In the same way, we cannot defy gravity, so we cannot be held accountable for defying gravity. If we accept accountability, we accept choice. If choice is possible, there must be some uncertainty of what we will choose between various options. If there is uncertainty, then there is an opportunity for critical analysis. If there is opportunity for critical analysis, and one does not take it, they have made a choice, and they are accountable for the subsequent action or lack thereof. If they conduct a critical analysis of the decision, they are accountable for the subsequent action. Every choice is made because it is believed to be better, or more advantageous, than the alternate options. If one chooses not to analyze which option is better, or more advantageous, they have nonetheless made a choice, as they thought it would be better, or more advantageous, not to conduct a critical analysis of the situation. For something to be “better” or “more advantageous,” does not necessarily mean that thing is moral. In order for something to be moral, according to both parts of the definition, it needs to be based on principle. Principles are, by nature, universal. Therefore, in order for an action to be considered moral, it needs to be universally better, or universally advantageous. Thus we come to the first and only consistent logical proof for morality, Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB)*.
It is universally preferable that interactions be voluntary. Any who question this principle need only answer this questions: “would you rather make a decision because it is to your benefit, or because you are being forced to make it?” Regardless of the possibility that what is being forced upon you is also to your benefit, the question is what is preferred, not what is the consequence. Would you rather choose your wife, or have her forced upon you? Would you rather choose what you eat, or have it forced upon you? Put is such binary form, the answer is obvious. Anarchism is the negative statement of a principle, of which voluntarism is the positive. Anarchists argue against rulers, because voluntary interactions can only take place where there is no coercion. There can only be no rulers if people are capable of voluntary interactions via negotiation.
In conclusion, morality is not possible where there is no choice. Choice is only possible in the absence of coercion. The nature of governmental authority is inherently coercive. Therefore, morality can only be fully expressed in the absence of rulers, or in a state of anarchy. That is not to say that moral action is impossible in the presence of rulers; rather, the opportunity to make moral decisions is diminished to whatever degree decisions are coerced. Anarchists, or voluntarists, reason that society will be elevated by the opportunity to make more moral decisions; and society will be degraded as the opportunities to make moral decisions is diminished.
*Universally Preferable Behavior: a Proof of Secular Ethics
Stefan Molyneux
No comments:
Post a Comment