2) Anarchist Essays: Objective Morality

I am not even going to attempt to explain ethics with in one essay but I do want to stress the importance of objective morality.  Because I believe this is the foundation for anarchist/libertarian thinking by claiming that morality is bigger then government.

Either morality is objective, consistent and derived from reality or it is irrelevant.  In the same way that if mathematics are not objective and consistent then they are irrelevant because the statement 2+2=5 has no relevance to my existence, how ever the statement 2+2=4 does.

If I told you rocks fell up and down at the same time you wouldn't believe me.  If I told you 1 and -1 are the same thing, you would laugh at me. Yet for some reason we don't believe morality should be consistent. If I take money by force then it is called stealing, and it is wrong but if a member of the IRS comes and takes your money at the threat of violence if you don't comply it is simply called "taxes".

Individualism

If we are to apply morality consistently it must be applied to individuals, and individuals alone. Because any group of people is simply 2 or more individuals. Society is not an existing entity that you can feel or touch, but rather another name for a certain number of individuals.  Yet we treat this term "society" as if it is some kind of god.

"it is good because it is good for society!" is a very common claim and also "the greatest good for the greatest number!" we have all probably heard before or perhaps you hold these beliefs yourself.

However I reject all of these claims. Because "good" cannot be applied to groups of people, but only individuals. For example to say "it is good to take from the rich to give to the poor because it is good for society" is invalid because both the rich and the poor are within society, and though the poor may be benefiting the rich clearly are not. So clearly this deal is not good for the rich, are they not within society? How can something be good for society when it is not good for everyone within society?  Exactly who is society? Exactly who is benefiting? Why do different moral rules apply to people based on their income? To separate society from individuals makes as much sense as trying to separate  a house from the bricks it is made of.

Not only do people try and apply morality to groups but they also try to claim that morality is subjective to groups. When you say "its just their culture" you are claiming that different moral rules apply to different people based on what people think. This concept is possibly best known and cultural relativism.

Once again this is the same thing. Different moral rules apply to different people based on a group of people think with in a certain geographical location?  By this standard I see it hard to say that it was wrong for the Nazis to kill the Jews.  What people think, no matter how many of them there are, does not change the truth.  And if morality is a concept derived from truth and if truth is a concept derived from reality then I believe it is clear that morality is something to come to terms with and understand, rather than something to be voted on.

Negative Rights

Also to maintain consistency there must be negative rights or what is often times called individual rights as opposed to positive rights or collective rights. The individual rights that John Locke listed were Life, Liberty, and property (in the declaration of independence it was changed to "the pursuit of happiness" to justify slavery) but what Locke meant by a right to property is not that you have a natural right to a certain amount of property but rather that no one has the right to take it away from you.  Also you do not have a right to be alive no matter what but no one has the right to take your life away.

Perhaps now we can see the difference between positive and negative rights. Negative rights mean that you do not have the right to have things taken from you, positive rights mean that you have an inherent right to have something. An example of positive rights would be FDR's "second bill of rights"

• A Job with a Living Wage
• Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
• Homeownership
• Medical Care
• Education
• Recreation

Surely you can see a difference between the right not have property taken away from you and "the right to homeownership". And perhaps now we can see the problem with positive rights. They apply different moral rules to different people.  A person who does have a house and a person who does not have a house according to "the second bill of rights" have a different standard of ethics applied to them.  One person has the "right" to another persons property or money to achieve their "right of homeownership" yet the persons money who must be taken away to help provide for the homeless mans home does not own his property? The statement being made is "property rights both exist and don't exist at the same time" or "property rights are valid for me but not for you simply because you have a house" which is a pure contradiction and invalid.

Unless you are going to argue that a person who cannot afford education, homeownership, and medical care (which would be much more available under a free market), is fundamentally different then the person who can then you must apply the same moral rules to both of them. Either property rights exist or they do not, they cannot exist and not exist at the same time. If they do not exist then no one has a right to homeownership at all, if they do exist then no one has the right to take money from other people.  Those are your only two options. Thus positive rights can be seen as contradictory because they both claim and deny property rights at the same time.

Government Applies

The reason that discussing objective morality is so important is that if morality is objective and consistent to all individuals then the individuals in government have the exact same moral principals applied to them that applies to everyone else. This concept will be discussed further in later essays but it is important to understand. I as an anarchist believe government is not some kind of supernatural entity that has different moral rules then the rest of us.  It is made of the same material: Individuals.