Wednesday, September 29, 2004

How to Vote 3: Social Contracts and Ethics

In previous posts I have been systematically discussing what kind of social system would seem most appropriate from a non-Christian, perhaps atheist point of view. My conclusion is that from such a perspective, the egoist perspective seems most logical: do that which is in your own best interest. If we formulate self-interest in terms of pleasure and pain, we suggested that a maximum of happiness would result from a system in which fellow egoists agree to a social contract that allows maximal freedom without impinging on the pleasure of others. This entree asks what the ethical system of such a social contract would look like.

Such a system would likely look like the dictum of Thomas Jefferson, "that government governs best that governs least." In other words, the function of law is to keep one person's "pursuit of happiness" from impinging on that of another.

We thus outlaw murder, but perhaps not suicide. We outlaw stealing. We outlaw activities that endanger others, but not necessarily ones that endanger ourselves. In this system, we wouldn't have laws about the sexual activities of consenting adults, hetero- or homosexual. We probably would not have seat belt laws.

It makes sense in this system to have laws that protect workers and avoid things like monopolies and price gouging. This "universal egoist" system is thus somewhat different from a straight utilitarian or pure capitalist system.

A crucial question, and one the founding fathers did not address in a way to our current liking, is who constitutes a person whose happiness counts. In the original Constitution, slaves did not count as full persons; women and children were not given the right to vote either. From an egoist perspective, there is no clear answer as to who would count. I suggested at the very beginning that we might take a "noble" egoist perspective, by which I meant that we would count everyone: men, women, children. All races, the unborn, all ages--these are people we could include. Certainly any that we do not include who have the potential to disturb the egoistic balance are a threat to the system and thus are reasonably included.

America was roughly set up on this model. Settled during a time of persecution, the principal of religious neutrality was set up. American was not to have an established religion to escape the religious persecutions of England and Europe. Rhode Island was thus equally inviting for Anabaptist, Catholic, and Protestant alike. The idea was of course not to squash religion, but to allow each individual to practice his or her religion as made them happy. If one person's practice of religion, free speech, or free ideas threatened the happiness of others, then of course we might legitimately place curbs on it.

This is a sketch of an egoist system that attempts to maximize individual freedom and happiness while minimizing pain. We have conceived it without reference to theism. Since I believe in God and Christ, however, I must now ask what modifications I must make to such a system as a Christian. When I was an egoist, I thought as an egoist, I voted as an egoist.

But when I become a Christian, do I put away egoist things? Next entree: How does a Christian function in this system, or can she?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

(Just curious... why do you keep on calling them entrees instead of entries?)

Ken Schenck said...

Ha--maybe because I like to eat? Thanks, o mysterious one.

Aaron, thanks for the cents (I obviously am running on a deficit budget so I can use it all).

I'm actually not sure what I'm going to write next. I'm trying to think it through while I go. It does seem like the closer religion gets to politics, the more likely that someone somewhere will get burnt. Because of human nature, I really do like the idea of keeping the two somewhat separate and adopting a "positive influence" model rather than a "legislate morality" one.

But those are my intuitions, and I'm trying to think it through systematically. So we'll see in my next entry :) (and your next entree, if you have the appetite)

Anonymous said...

Just as a minor point on the implied history here - while it is true that there was no NATIONAL religion established in the early United States - many of the states (and the colonies before them) had state sponsored churches well into the 1800's. Maryland was a Catholic enclave - Massachusetts supported the (IIRC) Congregational Church up until 1860 or so - etc. (Although Thomas Jefferson was proud of the separation clauses he included in the VA constitution, and I am pretty sure that, at a minimum, RI and PA were fairly committed to religious freedom). The protections in the Constitution (no religious test for public officials) and the 1st Amendment only applied to the national government.

In fact, some of those who were most clearly fleeing religious persecution did NOT set up a model of religious neutrality - the pilgrims imposed a state church (although a different church than the Church of England) upon the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which was continued in the new state of Massachusetts.

I don't mean to divert you too far from your main point - just saw a passage that pulled one of my "historical reality" chains.

Ken Schenck said...

Thanks for the info--I knew RI was not necessarily typical of all the settlements and states, but didn't know that the first amendment clause only applied technically to the federal government--neat information. That fits with the idea of the civil war as the focal battle between states rights and federal control.

I don't know exactly where I'll come down on the question of the Christian and the State, but I think the neutral set-up makes a lot of practical sense.