Essay on Morality in Government

[Surlethe]

This is an essay I wrote for a scholarship application. I'm wondering specifically if I can get any feedback on whether the argument is valid, and if I have my facts correct regarding humanism and the role of government, but I also welcome general feedback.

The question of morality’s function in government underlies many modern social questions. Under scrutiny, the point of contention becomes not whether government should utilize morality, but which moral code government ought employ. In fact, the function of morality is to define and enforce social norms and mores; the ideal purpose of government is to protect its citizens and secure their rights. Thus, government ought embrace morality only to the extent the moral code furthers the government’s purpose.

Morality defines and enforces social norms. Traditional Christian morality, for example, propagates strict social strata while simultaneously proselytizing; by contrast, modern humanism requires nothing of an action save a lack of deleterious consequences. In general, a society establishes a moral code to streamline social interaction and justify hierarchic status quo, in the form of defining the status quo into norms and thus maintaining. Hence, a particular choice of moral code will naturally conform the structure of government to a set of social norms. The question of the role of morality within government thus becomes a question of which set of social norms ought government temporally enforce.

At a very basic level, government possesses only two objectives: security of citizens and security of citizens’ rights; essentially, the government should provide for the basic welfare of the population. All arguments for adoption thereby of a particular moral code must therefore address in what manner that moral code comparatively maximizes the welfare of the citizenry.

Governments, as temporal entities, necessarily limit consideration of the eventual consequences of any given act to observable ramifications. The best way to evaluate the temporal welfare of a given populace is to determine that population’s overall satisfaction per capita. As every person realizes, fulfillment directly follows from satiation of desire. Thus, slaking individual desire will maximize overall satisfaction.

If human desires never conflicted, government would not require a moral code to restrain the actions of citizens; however, at times, the intentions of one human will thwart the intentions of another. Consequently, governments must arbitrate between individuals in the instance of conflict. The best device a government possesses to determine the correct outcome is, again, overall satisfaction: the government can evaluate each potential outcome, and broadly compare each outcome with each other; the ideal outcome contains the most total satisfaction.

In general, so long as individual fulfillment neither harms nor hinders another, the government should not prevent any person from satiating his yearnings and, thus, obtaining satisfaction. If an individual gains pleasure from preventing others from fulfilling desires, then the government ought to arbitrate to maximize total satisfaction; moreover, should unintended consequences of one person’s actions harm another individual, the government ought to punish the injurer, and discourage any further emulation thereof, unless the recipient desires injury.

These facts lead to the ideal moral code for a government: one which maximizes total satisfaction within the nation. The only manner in which a government may so augment contentment is a complete lack of norms so long as no individual action possesses deleterious ramifications harming the ability of others to satisfy their desires. Coincidentally, this method of maximization is precisely identical to modern humanist morality.

Therefore, government ought to embrace a modern humanist morality in order to more fully maximize the individual satisfaction within the nation; doing so fulfills the government’s purpose of amplifying the total welfare of the citizenry. The moral code’s purpose is merely an enforcement of certain social norms; such social norms serve to justify a particular status quo. The social norms which result in a status quo maximizing welfare are therefore precisely those of humanism.

[Darth Wong]

Ummm, it's a little short for an essay, isn't it? That's more like a local newspaper editorial.

Also, you define a series of premises about the nature of morality and responsibilities of government without establishing them to be true; you simply assume that they are true and that the reader will agree with you.

[Surlethe]

Ummm, it's a little short for an essay, isn't it? That's more like a local newspaper editorial.

The scholarship required 600 words, so I had to be concise.

Also, you define a series of premises about the nature of morality and responsibilities of government without establishing them to be true; you simply assume that they are true and that the reader will agree with you.

The premises aren't unreasonable, though, are they? The idea was to make a common ground with the reader and then reason toward the conclusion based on the premises. I'm not sure anyone would disagree with "the function of government is to provide for the basic welfare of the population" and "morality defines and enforces social norms".

[Darth Wong]

I'm not sure anyone would disagree with "the function of government is to provide for the basic welfare of the population" and "morality defines and enforces social norms".

On the contrary, I'm sure you could easily find a lot of people who would disagree with either or both of those premises.

[Surlethe]

I'm not sure anyone would disagree with "the function of government is to provide for the basic welfare of the population" and "morality defines and enforces social norms".

On the contrary, I'm sure you could easily find a lot of people who would disagree with either or both of those premises.

What sort of premises would they substitute to define the function of government and morality?

[Darth Wong]

I'm not sure anyone would disagree with "the function of government is to provide for the basic welfare of the population" and "morality defines and enforces social norms".

On the contrary, I'm sure you could easily find a lot of people who would disagree with either or both of those premises.

What sort of premises would they substitute to define the function of government and morality?

Some feel that the function of government is only to provide for collective defense and infrastructure, not the general welfare of the population. Some even feel quite strongly that any attempt to provide for the general welfare of the population is morally wrong and constitutes a form of communism, hence they oppose all forms of welfare.

As for morality, I think your definition is flawed, so you don't have to look too far to find disagreement on that point. Social norms do not necessarily have anything to do with morality; something can be abnormal without necessarily being considered immoral. For example, a person running around wearing a clown suit and flapping his arms as he walks is violating numerous social norms, but not even a rabidly intolerant fundie Christian would interpret this particular aberrant behaviour as "immoral". Conversely, something can be normal without necessarily being moral; everyone lies on occasion, but few would dispute that lying is immoral.

[Uraniun235]

Some feel that the function of government is only to provide for collective defense and infrastructure, not the general welfare of the population. Some even feel quite strongly that any attempt to provide for the general welfare of the population is morally wrong and constitutes a form of communism, hence they oppose all forms of welfare.

You can find a lot of these people in the Republican party, Surlethe. This is also a key tenet of libertarianism.

(Among the more anarchist libertarians you start finding people arguing not about what degrees and forms of welfare are acceptable, but what degrees and forms of infrastructure are acceptable, i.e. whether government should provide for firefighters.)

[Kuroneko]

Interesting. Is your essay primarity presriptive or descriptive? If it's the latter, then I would like to add to the above that a utilitarian ideal does not mesh well with the reality of government, at least in the in US. The method of arbitration is almost invariably the examination of rights, which are much more capricious things. While rights-talk can arise from utilitarian concerns (i.e., declaring this or that as a right leads increased utility), the real driving force behind government arbitration is the obsession of treating every case equally. Even universal benefit is not enough; if the benefit is not equal, it's a no go.

For example, when New York decided to adopt the European idea of having small street toilets which require payment to be used, disabled rights groups raised the charge of discrimination. Despite the initial very successful run that showed that they were in great demand, no compromise was reached--most New York streets are not wide enough to accomodate wider toilets, and they would not accept separate ones in places where there is enough space. The result was, predictably, that nobody got anything. Not that this is some special case about rights-groups for the disabled; on the contrary, it's the fact that it isn't that's the problem. Just about everyone is covered by something, and most are by many things--on the basis of age and "reverse discrimination" included. This leads not only to a cheapening of rights, but also of creating impassable beauracratic deadlocks.

[Surlethe]

Some feel that the function of government is only to provide for collective defense and infrastructure, not the general welfare of the population. Some even feel quite strongly that any attempt to provide for the general welfare of the population is morally wrong and constitutes a form of communism, hence they oppose all forms of welfare.

You can find a lot of these people in the Republican party, Surlethe. This is also a key tenet of libertarianism.

(Among the more anarchist libertarians you start finding people arguing not about what degrees and forms of welfare are acceptable, but what degrees and forms of infrastructure are acceptable, i.e. whether government should provide for firefighters.)

I was under the impression libertarians support smaller government because they believe it maximizes society's welfare.

As for morality, I think your definition is flawed, so you don't have to look too far to find disagreement on that point. Social norms do not necessarily have anything to do with morality; something can be abnormal without necessarily being considered immoral. For example, a person running around wearing a clown suit and flapping his arms as he walks is violating numerous social norms, but not even a rabidly intolerant fundie Christian would interpret this particular aberrant behaviour as "immoral". Conversely, something can be normal without necessarily being moral; everyone lies on occasion, but few would dispute that lying is immoral.

Point. Would it be more correct to state, basically, a moral code defines that which adherents condemn?

[Darth Wong]

I was under the impression libertarians support smaller government because they believe it maximizes society's welfare.

Extremist libertarians actually see "society" as a bad word, and think purely in terms of individual freedoms.

Point. Would it be more correct to state, basically, a moral code defines that which adherents condemn?

I would say that a moral code defines behaviours which its adherents believe would lead to an ideal society. Some moral codes differ because their adherents have totally different ideas of what an ideal society is (ie- different goals), while other moral codes differ because their adherents have totally different ideas of how to reach the same goal.

The latter type of dispute is potentially resolvable through analysis and debate, while the former type of dispute is generally intractable. If one person's idea of an ideal society is freedom and prosperity while another person's idea of an ideal society revolves around piety, self-denial, and worship of imaginary sky fairies, it will be impossible to achieve common ground.

[Zero]

I just remember what my friend's gov teacher said... "According to the extremist libertarian view, I should be able to sell heroin to underages crackwhores in return for sex in broad daylight." The guy's a bit off, maybe...

[Surlethe]

I was under the impression libertarians support smaller government because they believe it maximizes society's welfare.

Extremist libertarians actually see "society" as a bad word, and think purely in terms of individual freedoms.

I understand that; the hangup I'm having is for some reason I think the libertarian point of view arises because they think everybody is better off when there are few or no constraints on personal behavior. Is that not the libertarian ideal?

Point. Would it be more correct to state, basically, a moral code defines that which adherents condemn?

I would say that a moral code defines behaviours which its adherents believe would lead to an ideal society. Some moral codes differ because their adherents have totally different ideas of what an ideal society is (ie- different goals), while other moral codes differ because their adherents have totally different ideas of how to reach the same goal.

So a moral code condemns behaviors which, if pursued, lead to a less-than-ideal society. However, since government can create the ideal society through enforcing those social boundaries, of course different moralities want their moral code enforced. Then that questions the acceptability of my other main premise, which is that a society in which satisfaction has been maximized is good; is there a way I can justify satisfaction = good?

The latter type of dispute is potentially resolvable through analysis and debate, while the former type of dispute is generally intractable. If one person's idea of an ideal society is freedom and prosperity while another person's idea of an ideal society revolves around piety, self-denial, and worship of imaginary sky fairies, it will be impossible to achieve common ground.

So the only recourse, then, is name-calling, right?