But Mills is, of course, not interested in ideal standards that we cannot attain to utilizing our own human strength. His purpose is to construct a paradigm by which humanity can operate without the worry of failure. Mills' predecessor, Jeremy Bentham, first put utilitarian concepts into a calculus of happiness (or pleasure) that would help measure actions leading toward the creation of good policy. this is vastly different and inhumane way of seeing the value in one's neighbor. It is a cold, calculating and hard methodology. The Golden Rule (though it would be called an "ideal"according to human standards) is not meant to operate utilizing human effort primarily. It works when a person adopts Christian principles as his standard modus operandi. He is also aware of the fact that he is morally unable to do anything for himself. In this sense the Christian has a negative view of man's chance for attaining lasting happiness without Christ. Mills was writing in a positive way. Existentialism had not yet pulled the plug on this kind of optimism. I am reminded of Paul's words with a little twist, "So now faith, hope and love (don't forget happiness!) abide, these three (four!!); but the greatest of these is love (and the least and most human is happiness - so there!).
On the one hand we have rules of conduct regarding government authority in Romans 13. Paul teaches us that love is the rule of conduct. He explains, in 14:8, that in living we live to the Lord and dying we die to the Lord. So our identity is in the Lord and that all wrongs will be righted when each must give an account on that final day. The Libertarians consider property rights preeminent. They teach that "no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else."1 This is the harm Principle as it applies to our greatest asset or greatest expression of our freedom - the right to be secure in our possessions. But Paul would rather us look at it from the other side. The Libertarian perspective is mainly defensive - it is my right to be left alone with my things. The Biblical perspective, as Paul draws it for us, is proactive or offensive - since my life is not my own, I will surrender my rights and serve my neighbor. We don't horde; we share because all we do we do for our Lord's approval. There is no such thing as "these are my things!"
In conclusion we read, in 13:12, to "cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light". In 13:14 Paul says to "put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh". These are statements that run counter current from Libertarian ideals. The difference between loving my neighbor and doing whatever I want as long as it does no harm to him is as a canyon size gulf opening before my feet. Even if the situation is consensual to both does not address the absolute moral principles the Bible points out as truth. The issue is not whether we both agree, but what is right? Christian principles address this aspect whereas Libertarian principles figure eternal morality to be unerring if founded on fleeting human passions. Paul says that there is proper behavior. There is right and wrong that is based not on human opinion or decision but on God's truth. He says in 13:13 to "walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy." Why? Simply because these things demonstrate that we do not act from love if we do them. Love "does no wrong to a neighbor" and now Paul is revealing that these kinds of behaviors do wrong to our neighbor. Even J.S. Mills mentions that man does not live to himself. He says, and I quote from his 1859 work On Liberty which is a standard for utilitarian and libertarian thinking, "No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself without mischief reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond them. If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly derived support from it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community." This quote proves the scriptural premise who is my neighbor. Jesus was asked this by a lawyer in Luke 10:29. Jesus' response to the lawyer was one of love and compassion fitting for a godly, righteous person. In this parable Christ equates love with mercy to one's fellow man. The list of those passing the injured man by while lying on the road to Jericho may have indeed been a libertarian rather than a Pharisee or priest; for the injury to the man was not caused by himself. He would be justified in passing by on the other side with a clear conscience. But true love is equated with mercy and compassion (10:33). the man even inconvenienced himself by being willing to pay for the innkeeper's continued care towards the injured to see him on his feet again. Again, the libertarian ideal falls so far short of this kind of self-less behavior. Love is a selfless act towards others that has no hidden motive but the motive put there by Christ's love towards us to serve one another selflessly. It is not of human origin to be able to do this. This is why people like J.S. Mills, Rothbard, J. Bentham, J. Rousseau, T. Hobbes and J. Locke have to try to invent social contracts or other political philosophies to get people to live with each other peaceably. But he one rule we need is love towards God who gives us love towards man. This is the linchpin between the individual and corporate levels as expressed in personal relationships of judgment between one another and social civil affairs in how we must obey those put in authority over us.
-Joe
1 Rothbard, Murray N.,For a New Liberty, Mises Institute; 2006 2nd edition, p. 27.
No comments:
Post a Comment