The Search for Liberty; Chapter Seventeen: Ergo Summatim

NB: All previous chapters can be found here.

Well, that’s it.  I think it is worth offering a brief summary as it seems a good way to close this book; it also will be helpful for those who don’t want to read too much.

In Plato we find the Form of the Good – the perfect triangle that exists in the abstract.  Aristotle placed this in physical form.  In other words, Plato offered us God; Aristotle required Jesus – the perfect form made manifest.

Human beings, like all of creation, are created with a purpose, an end, a telos.  It is easy to understand this for a tree, a rock, or a lion.  It is easy to understand this for an eye or a heart.  So why not when it comes to humans?  Are we given rationality and reason in exchange for a lack of proper ends?  “Do whatever you want”?  It seems a poor trade, one sure to lead to a meaningless life; it could easily lead to hell on earth.

But then what is that end?  God is the Form of the Good, but this is not understandable and therefore hardly useful for humans – what do we do with that which is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent?  We are none of these and can comprehend little of these.  We have been given Jesus – the Form of the Good made manifest.  In Him and through Him we find man’s end and purpose. 

Man’s end or purpose can be summarized in the Golden Rule, which can be considered the basis or objective of Natural Law.  Throughout history and throughout the world, the concept of the Golden Rule has been offered – in many cultures and many religious traditions.  However, only in Christianity did it develop in a manner extended to all humans, and not merely to kings – perhaps because the concept of man being made in God’s image is fundamental to Christianity.

Thomas Aquinas further developed Aristotelian Metaphysics, incorporating Christian theology into a holistic philosophical view.  While not being the first to do so, he offered happiness as the end, or purpose, for man.  But not happiness in the superficial sense we know the term; in the Latin, beatitudo:

The happiness that comes from seeing the good in others and doing the good for others. It is, in essence, other-regarding action.

These ends are objective – they are not chosen at random by the pure reason of each individual.  These ends are to be discovered; they are in humans, not invented by humans. 

The issue: can the judged also be judge?  Can man be the judge of proper natural law?  If it is on man’s judgement – man’s pure reason – then how is this law objective?  Who, or what, will arbitrate when two men disagree?  On what basis will this be settled?  Will there be a third man above these two?  Who will stand in judgement of him?  If man (meaning all men) judges in this as opposed to accepting judgement from a third party, liberty cannot be found.

Which brings us back, full circle, to God as the perfect Form of the Good, and Jesus as that form made manifest.  If man uses his reason against this example of Jesus, he will not stray far from the mark.  The judged will be judged by a third party – the only party who can rightly judge. 

What of violations of the Natural Law that are not violations of the non-aggression principle?  Does liberty require breaking a few eggs for non-violent offenses?  This would seem to lead to theocracy.  A different path, yet a similar result if one follows the non-aggression principle devoid of any other absolutist ethics – both paths encroach on liberty while claiming to save liberty; both paths lead to diminished liberty.  One is merely left to debate degrees.

If one is after liberty, the proper way to deal with non-violent offenses of the discovered Natural Law is through advice and counsel, not physical punishment.  Providing advice and counsel is the role of parents, families, communities – to properly teach and hold accountable.  But fundamentally, it is the role of the Church – or Christianity, more properly, today.  Christianity, institutionally, must play this role.  Such absolutist ethics are not sustainable without an institution behind these.

As an aside, love – the “other-regarding action” of beatitudo – is to be found in the doing, not in advocating for government action.  It is here where the rubber of Christian advice and counsel must hit the road, in the doing.

Finally, every community will have different norms for the continuum – the spaces in between – as objective ethics offer little in the way of identifying the point along the continuum acceptable within a given community.  Questions on topics such as property, aggression, punishment, age of majority – there are many acceptable answers in between the easily identifiable extremes.

Conclusion

Asking questions, search for clues

The answer's been right in front of you

-          Octavarium, Dream Theater

Libertarianism is insufficient for liberty.  So that this opinion regarding objective ethical values grounded in natural law cannot be simply dismissed as a “Christian” opinion, consider Murray Rothbard when discussing the utilitarian approach of Mises:

What I have been trying to say is that Mises's utilitarian, relativist approach to ethics is not nearly enough to establish a full case for liberty. It must be supplemented by an absolutist ethic — an ethic of liberty, as well as of other values needed for the health and development of the individual — grounded on natural law, i.e., discovery of the laws of man's nature. Failure to recognize this is the greatest flaw in Mises's philosophical worldview. (Emphasis added.)

An absolutist ethic, made up of ethics for liberty as well as of other values, is required if one is to make a full case for liberty.  The non-aggression principle makes no such claim as to being so complete.  For any libertarian in the Rothbardian tradition, it seems this trail had already been significantly blazed long ago.  The answer has been sitting right in front of me, in plain sight.

Objective ethics grounded in natural law.  Perhaps one more reason that mainstream libertarians hate Rothbard.

Epilogue

You will note that I say nothing in this book about examining details of Natural Law beyond pointing to Jesus as offering an example.  This is by choice, as the topic is much beyond my intended scope.  But I will offer an examination of Jesus in the Appendix: His life, His words, and His deeds. 

Call it a roadmap.