 Whether
we're talking about utilitarianism, libertarianism, or autonomism, I
have a problem with all of these frameworks.
I reject a purely secular view of ethics and
political philosophy. I want to suggest an alternative based on metaphysics, theology, human nature, and history.
You can call it a kind of conservatism if you want.
In my view, there is an objective moral code built into the nature of things.
Furthermore, human beings have a moral end. They exist to perfect themselves morally as much as
possible in this life. Freedom is the necessary condition of that process of perfection. Moral action and moral
improvement cannot be coerced. We do not improve morally if we give to the poor because the government requires us to do so. That is why moral development requires freedom. And that is why we must establish freedom in our society. Without it, we cannot reach our proper end.
One of my favorite authors is Frank Meyer. Meyer was the kind of American conservative
who was more or less a classic liberal with a theological and
metaphysical basis for his philosophy. He wrote extensively about freedom. Meyer believed that there were "absolute truths and absolute values toward which men should direct themselves."
In Meyer's view, the proper role of the state is to maintain order and maximize
the liberty of each without allowing him or her to interfere with others.
One of the problems with the liberal welfare state is that it removes the freedom to choose badly.
For example, helping the poor is a good thing; but the welfare state requires
us to help the poor. Such a requirement prevents moral development, which
implies freely choosing good over evil.
|
