2004 exchange with a libertarian friend (S)
—————
From: Cristian Comanescu
To my mind, as I believe I suggested before, if it were not for God, anything goes, as long as you’re so inclined & can get away with it.
(And there’s always a lot you can get away with.)
However, I see truly compelling & meaningful libertarianism as a corollary of (Orthodox) Christianity, and Christianity as the true and complete “moral nature” (=created nature increasingly restored & even surpassed, in those who choose to follow the narrow path, by divine grace) of man, man’s receipt for happiness. Why be a libertarian, if otherwise inclined? Because the State, any State, is, ultimately, an expression of the revolt against God and of the reification of what in God’s eyes are other human persons, of their tangible expressions – body & property. And the revolt against God is the receipt for unhappiness.
“Having abandoned God, man erects his own enemies, first among them being the State… The more the state apparatus organizes and strengthens itself, the quicker and more bitter the process of man’s depersonalization becomes.”
Archimandrite Sophrony
“For Contemporary Man”
—————
From: (S)
To: “‘Cristian Comanescu’”
“if it were not for God, anything goes, as long as you’re so inclined & can get away with it”
This view has always seemed to me too close to a type of legal positivism—instead of saying the legislature can decree morals, it is pushed back a level to some supernatural superlegislature (God). If there is a God, hopefully He is a good God; but surely, the standard of goodness is outside God. He is good, he does not define good. He could not make it good to murder people, could He?
—————
From: Cristian Comanescu
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 3:50 PM
To: (S)
Yours is an interesting question, but I fail to see how it can invalidate my previous statement. Psychologically I can understand your reaction, and the historical association of Church and State is, for precisely this reason, probably largely responsible for the modern reaction against the former (rather than against the latter, unfortunately, though perhaps not so surprisingly, in view of my previous remark.) On the other hand, if God turned out to back the ethics on nonconflictual interpersonal dialogue, as some saintly people seem to imply He does, then you cannot ever get away any more with anything goes. Or so it seems to me , anyway.
[…] Cristian
—————
From: (S)
To: “‘Cristian Comanescu’”
what I mean Is this. If you say that “without God, anything goes,” what you seem to imply is that if there is NOT a God, then it can’t be said that any action is immoral. Which implies that some actions are immoral just because there is a God. Which to me, means that the actions are immoral simply because God decreed them to be so. Which, to me, implies the type of positivisim I mention. It implies murder is wrong because God decrees it, rather than wrong in an of itself.
I do not doubt that if there is a God —and if He is Good, then we are lucky he is not bad— but that he could usefully instruct us as to what the good is. He could inform us. But he is not making it so, just telling us what it happens to be.
Jew disagree?
—————
From: Cristian Comanescu
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 4:54 PM
To: (S)
I think I see. In a sense you’re right. I certainly agree that you don’t have to know about God to state certain descriptive theorems concerning human action, like “nonconflictual dialogue and the possibility of billateral agreement imply libertarian non-aggression”, and prove them.
You can show that some actions inconsistent with each other, and in this restricted sense not anything goes. My point, however, was, and still is, that you can continue to aggress and say anything wou wish anyway, as long as you feel that way and can get away with it, as so often happens to be the case. Except if God sees to it that you cannot, ever, get away with it (e.g. by seeing to it that you become spiritually sick and eternally doomed
unless you make restitution and repent.)
It’s the same in mathemathics (leaving incentives aside). You don’t have to know about God to establish that 2+2=4. (It is, though, conceivable that the structure of reality, including the human mind is also God made and even that God’s sustenance is permanently necessary to all creation, and, if
so, whatever can be said, indeed whatever is, including the permanence of natural law, presupposes God, although it is not necesessary to know and/or acknowledge God to establish certain descriptive truths about God’s creation. The problem of positivism would then arise only against the background of God’s natural law.) But you can continue to say that 2+2=5 and even make money with this, whenever you can get away with
it. You have no systematic reason for not doing so, except if you HAPPEN to have a passion for truth or justice. UNLESS you fear God.
Now you raised the problem of a bad God. Let me say this much, without trying to go into deep theology. Assume that a bad god is conceivable and could raise real problems. What I say is that a good God is necessary for a truly convincing answer to the question “why be a libertarian, under all circumstances?” I see no contradiction here, do you? If I’m right, even if for no other reason, a good libertarian should “bet on the good God” and search thoroughly in His direction, shouldn’t he?
You finally seem to imply that God doesn’t instruct us enough concerning what the good is. According to what, or whose standard? A lot of saintly people feel that he instructed us more than enough, much like a good doctor instructs his patients, through natural law, written law and spiritual law (systematic access to the latter presupposing some Orthopraxis, i.e. patients taking some real steps toward their spiritual healing).
Why take their word for it? Because they sound like truly good people, who would never consciously do wrong, who have tasted the ever-increasing happiness of loving interpersonal dialogue and communion with God (this being a central theme of Orthodox Christianity.) And because it’s consistent with the hypothesis of the good God, the only one that makes sense, as far as I can see.
Hope that helps clarify my position. […]
Cristian
—————
From: (S)
To: “‘Cristian Comanescu’”
“My point, however, was, and still is, that you can continue to aggress and say anything wou wish anyway, as long as you feel that way and can get away with it, as so often happens to be the case. Except if God sees to it that you cannot, ever, get away with it (e.g. by seeing to it that you become spiritually sick and eternally doomed unless you make restitution and repent.)”
But I suppose you would say we already do have a God now. And even given that this is the case, and that there is a punishment at the end of the line waiting for sinners—still, still, it’s not “enough”, because some people still sin, or act as if “anything goes”.
Therefore, it seems to me (a) in a world with God, a certain
percentage of people will disregard morals and act as if anything goes; and (b) in a God-less world, a certain percentage of people will act this way too.
I have no idea whether the percentages are different, but in any case, surely your point cannot simply be that if there is God then there will be slightly improved, but still not perfect, crime statistics?
I do not think I meant to imply that if there is a God then He doesn’t do a good job instructing us. I happen to basically accept the idea that right and wrong are intuitive or obvious, “written on our hearts”; if there is a God it would not surprise me if He had something to do with this.
—————
From: “Cristian Comanescu”
To: (S)
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 1:03 AM
I very much agree, (S), but I think indeed there’s more to it than statistics: only a good God would undoubtedly provide a strong, systematic, rational incentive for being good, on a complete, social level. With a good God there’s ALWAYS a considerable cost for being bad. It’s like contracting a disease for being bad, which, if not properly cured by obeying God’s laws, makes existence increasingly unhappy, all the way through eternity. If He is good, then he CERTAINLY provides all that is needed to make goodness the sound, natural (though not compulsory) option for man; a believer in a good God knows he will ultimately regret bitterly his unrepented sins.
Otherwise I see no systematic reason why it should always be so, not to speak of people knowing whether or not it is so. Otherwise I see, ultimately, NO systematic incentive for not being bad, as often as you feel you can get away with it.
Only a good God makes it systematically rational to be good and ever better (which is more than legally just and would include a fair amount of Jeff Hummel’s “ideological altruism”), while in a Godless society, much of the time, anything goes, so systematic libertarianism in a critical number is basically doomed, or a matter of temporary accident, at best. In other words, God is a necessary (and, I think, sufficient) hypothesis for the systematic rationality (though not unavoidability) of social harmony.
I believe there’s an interesting essay on related topics online, “Nihilism”, by Eugene Rose, BTW.
This is not without reminding me of David Friedman (Machinery…) on Chesterton: “Asked why he believed what he did he replied: «Because I perceive life to be logical & workable with these beliefs and illogical and unworkable without them.»”
[…]
—————
From: Cristian Comanescu
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 5:12 PM
To: (S)
P.S. You were surely right in pointing out that my earlier paragraph was fallacious. In suggesting that a good God would somehow automatically prevent all sin it was an misstatement, seeming to make us all determinist automatons, in addition to the factual problems you pointed out. The point should have been, I think, not that you cannot sin with a good God, but
that you cannot hope to sin and not live to regret it, or, if you prefer, that you cannot hope to sin and not become, by “nature”, spiritually ill and unhappy because of it. If this condition isn’t uniformly met, sin (including aggression) can begin to seem definitely benefic, indeed a “rational
must”, every time it seems both gratifying in the shorter run and not harming one’s happiness in the long run. In a godless world you can, in a sense you rationally must, aggress every time you feel you can get away with it till the end (isn’t it easy, IF there’s no God?), or so it seems to me.
(Reminds me of Dostoyevsky’s Crime & Punishment, although I don’t remember if he saw the whole Chesterton implication.)
—————
From: (S)
To: “‘Cristian Comanescu’”
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 8:03 AM
Cristian, are you implying that no atheist can be moral…? Or, rather, that an atheist can perhaps be moral, but if so, it is only because there actualy is a God, despite their disbelief?
Or, are you implying that no believer in God can sin?
[…]
—————
From: “Cristian Comanescu”
To: (S)
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 1:46 AM
[…] let me see if I can make myself more explicit:
The main point, again: IF an atheist sees opportunities for sin/aggression that, he feels, will be beneficial to him in all time horizons (which can NEVER be the case with a believer, because he – and only he – knows with certainty that a time will come when he will regret any and all sin), IF he is to rationally maximize his happiness (ex ante), THEN he must sin/aggress (no matter what his time preference might be). Which seems to seal the long run prospects for libertarianism in a godless world.
Of course it is conceivable (but not a priori necessary) that an atheist will never feel that way. He may be emotionally backwards, for instance.
So he CAN be moral, in this sense. But would rationalist atheist libertarians wish to make the case for libertarianism rely on the play of feelings and emotions?
Yes, I do think that an atheist can be moral only because there actually is a God, despite their disbelief. It isn’t essential here, but let me quickly say I think God made emotional backwardness weighty & sticky enough to make sin often seem distasteful for a while, thus giving a
God-rejecting world time for repentance. A truly emancipated “rational” world promises to be, I think, quite a living hell. To repeat, the trouble is that, in situations as described above an atheist will “rationally” sin. The frequency of such situations may be in direct proportion with “emotional emancipation”, so to speak, but I think the motion in that direction is rapid and rapidly accelerating..
And of course a believer can sin, too, if he allows himself to discount the future enough. But a believer – and a priori a believer only – can also, in all conceivable situations, be both rational (economically speaking) and good. Indeed, if he wants to be rational in the sense of never getting spiritually ill, he must never sin.[…]
Cristian
