"ABSOLUTE" SCIENCE AND MORALITY

This essay addresses the question of absolutes in defining moral human behavior. It is an argument against such absolutes, and in favor of a relativist approach that the author believes is more consistent with the principles of self-ownership, non-aggression and free markets. A critique of the apparent "absolutes" in physical science is used to support this assertion. In particular, the idea that free market concepts should be presented in absolute moral terms is rejected here as arrogant, chauvinistic and totalitarian.

A classic argument in philosophy involves the idea of absolute moral values versus relative values. Absolutists argue that there is a single set of absolute moral standards by which all human behavior can be judged. These standards are claimed to be true, regardless of time, experience and culture. Unfortunately, absolutists cannot agree which set of standards are the right ones, or where they come from. To some, they come from god, a utilitarian argument for the greatest good for the greatest number, or majority rule, for example. Relativists, on the other hand, argue that the absolutist position denies the uncertainty in human behavior and the wide range of differing opinions among humans. This means that moral standards are different for different cultures and therefore no single moral standard exists or should be imposed by one culture or group on another. Absolutists criticize relativists for not being able to claim that cannibalism is always wrong, for example. Relativists respond by pointing out that the wide range of conflicting moral standards is evidence that a single set of standards doesn't exist. These classical philosophical arguments are discussed in detail in Exploring Ethics, by Donald M. Borchert and David Stewart (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1986).

In the physical sciences, there are certain universal constants, such as the speed of light. These constants have been discovered through a rational process of investigation, independent confirmation and repeated measurement by independent observers. They are often referred to as the "absolutes" of science. These scientific "absolutes" are sometimes held as analogies to promote the idea that similar absolutes can be found in human behavior and morality, if the same rational scientific method is consistently applied. This does not necessarily mean that these absolutes have been found, but that they might be discovered someday, as was the constancy of the speed of light. Some claim to have already discovered such absolute standards of human behavior.

THE ABSOLUTES OF SCIENCE

The foundation of all science is uncertainty. Scientific theories are based on observed data, rational analysis and logical conclusions. Those which have withstood the test of time and have been independently confirmed are thought to be facts. However, every new scientific theory and "fact" replaces an old one which was previously thought to be the right one.

The science of epistemology (which attempts to answer the question: How do we know?) should keep open-minded scientists humble, rather than arrogant. For example, Newton's laws of motion were considered to be the final answer on the subject for more than 200 years. Albert Einstein and others then discovered that they only apply in limited circumstances, which were previously beyond existing technology to discover. Although Newton's laws are still used today to adequately compute the orbits of satellites and planets, we now know that they are not accurate at velocities approaching the speed of light. Perhaps someday, the latest discoveries in quantum physics and other areas of primary research in the physical sciences will have to be revised as well. All science is subject to change, when and if better information is discovered. To deny this it to deny the entire history of science, as well as its predecessor, philosophy. Just because a new discovery revises a scientific theory doesn't mean the new theory is necessarily the final answer. Each successive confirmed theory is a better approximation to the truth, which may be unknowable in its entirety. At any rate, the arrogance of orthodoxy is no more justified in the physical sciences than in other human endeavors. (Arrogance + orthodoxy = ARROGOXY?)

I concede the existence of certain "universal" principles and standards that have withstood the test of time. For example, before Einstein, Newton's laws could reasonably be considered "universal" standards. This is because these scientific principles had never been found to be wrong. They worked, and every competent scientific experiment to test them resulted in their confirmation. Even now, after Einstein, the validity of Newton's laws is known to be limited to certain conditions. So, with this new caveat, they can once again be considered to be universal. However, this is not the same as the word "absolute," which is the subject of this essay. By "absolute" in the context used here, I mean a fundamentally unalterable truth, which is incapable of change.

The Speed of Light

The best evidence for any "absolute" that I am aware of is the scientific justification for the constancy of the speed of light. Based on numerous experiments both before and after Einstein, most scientists today are convinced that the speed of light is always the same, no matter from which reference point it is measured. Indeed, this apparently holds true even for moving reference points, which common sense and Newtonian physics tells us should produce a different value. However, the measurement always comes out the same. This may be the most powerful evidence in human science that there is an absolute, constant value for this parameter. However, this author believes that such a discovered parameter is universal, but not absolute.

Can we be so sure that our understanding of the speed of light will always be the same? How can we be so arrogant to think that the constancy of the speed of light, as well-documented and consistent as it is, will never be altered? We can never know whether we have all the information available about any subject, and therefore I find the whole idea of absolutes as unalterable truths rather preposterous. The best of universal scientific theories can be believed and trusted, right up until better evidence changes them. Perhaps this ultimate uncertainty is what causes so many people to seek magical, rather than rational, solutions by choosing blind faith in some authority figure rather than their own conscience and powers of observation. The authority figure can promise something that the universe can't: simplicity and certainty.

I have purposely avoided the complexities of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle from physics, since this essay is not intended to be technical in nature. However, even Heisenburg's conclusions are not universally accepted by scientists today. Apparently some scientists are uncertain about uncertainty! Hmmmmmm...

MORAL ABSOLUTES

If the very best of physical science is not absolute, then how can any human reasonably suggest that there are rational, discoverable and absolute standards of human conduct? The best free market scholarship suggests that principles such as self-ownership and non-aggression produce the best known conditions for prosperity and freedom. However, this does not make these universal principles absolute. Like Newton's laws, they may be the best conclusions that can be formulated based on what we now know. They may even form the basis for future societies which exceed all current expectations for human happiness. However, treating them as absolutes is not only unwarranted, but dangerous. There are several reasons for this:

1. When people think they have the final answer to a question, they stop looking for better answers. With respect to morality, this often leads to closed minds, indoctrination and a lack of curiosity and innovation.

2. Rules of human behavior which are thought of as absolutes tend to produce enforced conformity and tyranny. Even with free market principles such as non-aggression, many advocates seem to have a predisposition toward legislating these principles into legal requirements, without the consent of those who disagree. It may at first seem contradictory to suggest that an absolute standard of non-aggression for example, can lead to aggression; but that is exactly what I am saying. When one group of humans writes a document (like a constitution) which they think adequately sets forth certain principles (such as non-aggression), other humans who later interpret the document differently change the original intent, and often the document's entire meaning. A good example of this is the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution (which does not codify non-aggression, but the process is nevertheless the same). Apparently a document which protects the individual from the coercive power of government, it has been virtually destroyed by subsequent amendments, judicial interpretation and case law since the Bill of Rights. No one can read the Bill of Rights alone and determine what his or her legal rights are in these areas, because the coercive institutions which interpret and "enforce" the Bill of Rights have long since abandoned its principles. This will likely occur with any attempt to legislate or codify any particular definition or criterion of freedom for everyone.

3. By promoting a discovered or developed moral principle as an absolute, personal responsibility for any adverse side affects is often removed from those who believe in the principle. If following the principle inadvertently causes injury to someone who doesn't agree with it, then the promoters of the principle can fall back on a variation of an old adage, "the principle made me do it." The principle takes on a life of its own, and becomes an excuse for people not to respect the contrary beliefs of others. An example of this is the "rule of law." When the choice in the American colonies over 200 years ago was apparently between a coercive legal system controlled by a king and a coercive legal system without the king, the rule of law appeared to be a step forward. However, the rule of law has taken on a life of its own, rather than its original purpose, which was to limit the power of government. Today most free market scholars make their best philosophical and practical arguments in terms of maintaining a coercive rule of law, which they see as the only alternative to rule by men. By viewing the rule of law as an absolute standard, it becomes a comfortable old friend on which to lean when your arguments aren't as good as you would like. This allows "true believers" in the rule of law to avoid the tough questions such as, "who interprets the rule of law if not men?" and "why should such a rule stand if it involves coercion?"

4. An absolute principle is usually accompanied by the idea that it should never be violated. Remember now, we are dealing with volitional beings, not inanimate objects. If, for example, those who believe and follow the principle of non-aggression say they will never violate it, I can't help but think they haven't yet encountered the right situation. If my house were burning down, and I needed my neighbor's garden hose to put the fire out (but he wasn't around to ask permission), am I supposed to let the fire rage on so I do not violate his property right? In principle, yes. In practice, probably not. In this situation, I may consciously choose to violate my neighbor's property, thereby committing aggression (theft), which is against my deeply-held principles. However, I would then offer to compensate him later for any damage that I had done or for the theft of his property. Taking personal responsibility for the aggression and its consequences is a perfectly reasonable way to deal with this situation. The fact that humans choose to violate their principles under duress doesn't mean that the principles are not valid. However, neither does it mean that the principles are absolute. The important thing is that the violation was recognized, and compensation, along with an apology, was offered. This resolution of the admitted aggression will likely prevent it from escalating into larger, perhaps even vengeful, aggressions on the part of both parties.

5. From empirical observations and much scholarly work, free marketeers have generally come to the conclusion that the free market and its supporting concepts (self-ownership, private property, non-aggression) work better than coercion. However, those who insist that these principles of mutual respect and tolerance must be held by all others miss the point of the principles completely. Market processes are fundamentally based on the idea that alternative goods, services and even moral principles must be freely chosen by those who think it in their interest to do so. Insisting that those who do not choose these principles are immoral, wrong or evil is to suggest that all customers who choose not to buy a product should be condemned by the seller of the product. This is a dangerous idea, easily recognized with respect to free trade for tangible goods and services, but not so easily seen by some with respect to moral principles.

If we cannot be sure about the "absolutes" in the physical sciences, then how can we be sure about the supposed absolutes in behavioral principles for a volitional being like man? Even if we had a uniformity of opinion that there were certain absolutes (such as non-aggression), what difference would it make?

Are Markets Better Than Governments?

Perhaps the most important thing is to remember why many people believe that (voluntary) markets work better than (coercive) governments. It is because of free choice -- where every idea and product is constantly subjected to the fickle calculus of public opinion. This does not mean that public opinion is better than scientific or other scholarly research, but in many cases the "common sense" of the public is clearly closer to the truth than the opinion of "experts." This is particularly true in the social "sciences." Using questionable methods, biased data and outright distortion, many "experts" in economics, sociology, psychology and law do a much worse job of finding apparent truths than the common man in the street. This underscores the need for continuing skepticism not only in science, but in the search for morality as well.

There is no good reason why morality cannot be viewed as a product, just like shoes or television sets. Free marketeers cannot fully understand or appreciate the beauty of market processes until they stop treating some things (like morality, justice or protection) as not being subject to market processes. Of course, I am promoting the idea that the principles of the market should be applied to all human endeavors, and not just to those tangible goods and services to which we have become accustomed. Is this promoting an absolute? I don't think so.

Every human has a different set of values, moral principles and life experiences. These differences are precisely what make market transactions work. As the great Austrian (free market) economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out in HUMAN ACTION (Third Revised Edition, Yale University Press, 1966.), it is this inequality concerning opinions of value that make voluntary exchanges work. If both sides to a potential transaction valued the object that the other person had equally to the one they possessed, no transaction would take place. It is this inequality of opinion, and not some nebulous "equal" intrinsic value, that causes a market transaction to take place. However, this particular principle itself, which seems reasonable enough to some, might still be greatly improved by future criticism and further scholarship. As Einstein's theories improved on Newton's theories, new ideas might evolve to replace or improve the ones we think make sense at the present time. And in my opinion, here lies the key to the puzzle.

Each human chooses those ideas which seem most reasonable, based on differing values and experiences. While each set of ideas held by a group of people may seem absolute to them, this common agreement on principles must not be confused with an unalterable, absolute knowledge of the truth. Such arrogance often leads to the tyranny that has plagued mankind since the dawn of civilization. If these free markets that we claim to believe in really do work, then we must not expect others to necessarily have the same values as we do. Of course, we are free to persuade, argue and plead, but if we have to violate our principles to implement them, then they must not be as good as we thought. (This means consistent, widespread violations; not the isolated emergency such as the burning house, an aggression which was immediately recognized and resolved.)

Critics of the relativist moral approach recommended here will argue that without a rational morality, people will choose an irrational one. I say let them! So long as those of us who believe in rational free market principles are not coerced into subsidizing them, they will suffer the consequences of their irrational choices. To learn more about how you can protect yourself from having to subsidize such irrational acts, write to ZENO Press, Box 170, Sedalia, CO 80135. Ask for information on the Introduction to Terra Libra package. Terra Libra is a worldwide free enterprise zone for people who practice free enterprise.

Without absolutes, we can still define right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and bad; but each of these terms makes sense only in the context of a single human's subjective opinion. Markets aren't perfect. They do not always produce the "truth." Those of us who believe that they are better than coercion must not become so arrogant in our beliefs that we insist that everyone value moral principles the same way that we do. Not only does this deny the fundamental inequality that makes markets work, but it tends to prevent or limit the very choice which will likely bring future improvements to our currently-held ideas.

MORALITY AND CHOICE

Morality is a word that some people use to intimidate or shame others when facts, reason and persuasion are inadequate to convince others of their position. Morality cannot be imposed in an authoritarian manner from the top down. It must be freely chosen by individuals, based on their understanding of the world and what they believe to be their relationship to it. To do otherwise is to accept their own slavery.

Carl Jung, the famous psychologist, once said: "There is no morality without freedom" (see FREEDOM: Alchemy For a Voluntary Society, by Stephan A. Hoeller. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 1992. p. 93). This is often forgotten by free market advocates today. Most people were taught as children that morality is something that everyone should conform to, based on a "higher authority" than the self. This is completely false, unnecessary and destructive.

Authoritarian "morality" from legislation, dogmatic religion or collective sacrifice such as nationalism and the current trend toward "political correctness" is not really morality at all. It is simply the act of slaves obeying their masters so they will not be punished. AIternatively, it is often the act of "junkies," hooked on their government narcotic (a free lunch, anyone?). The most important missing ingredient in this process is choice. It is choice, and not obedience, that produces real morality.

People who want to control the lives of others (politicians, bureaucrats, the clergy, subsidized business people, public policy "experts", etc.) usually deny the process of choice to others. Choice to them is an evil thing, to be avoided at all costs. Instead, they promote totalitarianism based on religious dogma, utilitarianism, patriotism, or some other confused collectivist idea such as sacrificing yourself to the "needs" of others.

All enforced morality is totalitarian. Every time a parent, teacher or clergyman says to a child, "you will believe it because I say so," that child's individuality, spontaneity and opportunity for choice is damaged. Likewise with adults and their coercive governments. "Morality" by forcing people to conform to a single set of moral or ethical standards is a denial of what real morality is all about. Conformity and obedience are not moral choices; freely choosing a particular moral point of view is a moral choice. Responding to coercion to avoid punishment is not a moral choice; it is simply avoiding pain, like a pet who would be punished for doing something that displeased its master. If you are forced to do something, you did not choose it willingly. Therefore, you cannot make a moral choice without the freedom to choose. If you obey "laws" because of the threat of force behind them, this does not produce morality; it produces conformity, obedience, and self-enslavement.

Throughout human history, people have conformed to authority for a variety of reasons. Yielding to superior force, desiring to get along with others, naively believing that the coercers know what is best for them... the list goes on and on. However, it cannot seriously be argued that conforming to authority is morality. Indeed, such conforming behavior is the absence of morality. As Jung emphasized, morality requires choice. Markets give choices; governments do not. Markets are moral, because they allow choice; governments are not moral, because they do not. For a further explanation of this market/government dichotomy, see the report #Z-02: Why Government? from ZENO Press ($7, postpaid).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a whole world of new and old ideas to which I have not yet been exposed. I haven't yet learned many of the arguments and ideas involved with my chosen philosophy and its variations. This uncertainty and unsettled confidence is a stimulation for me to learn more; to argue against my existing ideas to test them and to search for better approximations of world descriptions and moral principles. I do not look for absolutes, however. I will leave that to those who are looking for the simple answer and frankly, I hope they don't find it.

Like many of you, I continue to search for a suitable answer to the question, "If freedom is so good, why don't we have more of it?" Perhaps most other people do not have enough information to see the benefits of free market ideas, or perhaps the ideas are just not good enough yet. Just because what we have may be the "best" today, doesn't mean that it can't be made better. The ease of selling democratic tyranny and the difficulty of selling individual responsibility and freedom underscore this. The arrogant imposition of moral absolutes does not enhance, but retards, the continuing search for a better life without coercion.

I would like to see the free market principles of self-ownership and non-aggression implemented by building alternative institutions to compete governments out of business. This is likely to be a much more effective way than counterproductive participation in the politics of the current government system. An exciting approach in which such competition is currently being developed and improved is the Freedom Technology which is marketed through Terra Libra. Terra Libra is a new country, but one without borders, statutes, or other institutionalized coercion. Frederick Mann, founder of Terra Libra, has developed, compiled and used a variety of techniques by which individuals can protect themselves from government aggression today. In addition, an important component of the Terra Libra approach is to develop additional private banks, currencies (both of which currently exist), justice systems, schools and businesses which operate on real free market principles.

Those who believe in free market principles should stick by them, and do their very best to set an example for others. However, the self-destructive application of these (or any other) principles in extreme cases of duress suggests that they are not yet as good as they can be. Until free marketeers realize that they have perhaps the best approximation, but not the final answer, the freedom movement will continue to be dominated by contradictory applications of principle and practice. And the popular acceptance of these elegant ideas will continue to be retarded by those who seem to believe that people must be perfect (or at least extraordinarily brave and principled) before we can have freedom. I just don't believe it!

The idea that everyone should adopt a single set of moral principles is arrogant, chauvinistic and totalitarian. At it's core, the subject of morality can be dealt with in two fundamental ways: Either it is an absolute standard to which everyone must conform, or it is simply another realm of human opinion that varies from one person to the next. The free market principles of self-ownership and non-aggression must not be forced into the uncomfortable mold of the first. Rather, they should be tested, criticized, changed and eventually strengthened by the second.

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com