Do Individual Freedoms Cause Selfishness?
The semi-annual General Conference of my Church is a time when our leaders gather and discuss issues of both doctrine and personal living. Today, a particular talk by one prominent member of the Church stood out to me. Elder L. Tom Perry, of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles said:
“The pursuit of so-called individual freedoms without regard to the laws of the Lord that He has established to govern His children on earth will result in the curse of worldliness and extreme selfishness; the decline of public and private morality; and the defiance of authority.”
In our class discussions we have talked frequently about the need to establish and protect individual rights. I wonder what communitarian and other social/group rights are sacrificed in a blind drive for ultimate individual autonomy. Elder Perry further stated that people are becoming accountable only to themselves, and to a limited extent, their societies. He implied that this was a bad trend – that extreme individualism would ultimately destroy the cohesive fabric of society.
I was most interested in the conclusion that extreme selfishness and pursuit of gain (worldliness) comes from the pursuit of individual freedom. I certainly have not made such a connection in any human rights class, or discussion – despite frequent treatment of the topic. For some reason, I think of the protection of individual rights (especially autonomy rights) as distinctly non-economic. But Elder Perry seems to state that the entrenchment of a preference for, and defense of, individual freedom causes an attitude of self-service that breeds selfishness. Advocates of economic equality often cite selfishness fundamentally causing the current stratification of classes and economic disparity. In fact, our discussions of egalitarian vs. capitalistic economic systems are really masks for a discussion about the proper role of “self-interest.” Now, I am confident that L. Tom Perry is a firm advocate for capitalism – but I wonder if the connection is even closer than he posited. If it is true that the entrenchment of individual freedoms breeds selfishness, then surely the cut-throat market competitiveness of the free market breeds the same.
I am convinced that we will not change the fact that capitalism is a preferable system of economics, all things considered; but I hope that we take advantage of the one thing that capitalism offers: the ability to give charitable donations. The best answer to my concerns about capitalism was that an egalitarian economy that forces individuals to hand over large sums of wealth to the state will not engender attitudes of charity amongst the public. People will assume that the State has sufficient funds to take care of the poor, and will feel that they have “paid enough” to the pot. The fundamental difference in capitalism, by contrast, is that people are generally allowed to keep their wealth, and donate to causes that they care about – thus increasing the likelihood that they will donate more generously. I think I tentatively buy this argument – although I am not sure how well such a system addresses the plights of those who are unpopular donation causes, but nonetheless have a high normative “need.” I also wonder whether we really take seriously our Christian obligations to “love our neighbors,” “feed the poor,” “lift up one another’s burdens,” and be “Good Samaritans.”
One of my largest concerns is that we are too selfish in our society. Maybe Elder Perry is right: does our overemphasis on individual freedoms impose more social costs than we think? What do you think? Is there really a causal connection between the protection of an ever-expanding class of individual freedom, and human selfishness? I think this might be a very important, researched facet of the poverty cycle on a societal level.
posted by talk hard, be heard at 8:15 PM
4 Comments:
There are good reasons for respecting the freedom of the individual AND recognizing that human beings are inevitably connected to others. One thing I have observed in students is the two places they recognize a self beyond the individual is in family and in faith. It is probably not an accident that your question was prompted by a church leader. In my view, justice requires a recognition of our interdependency and our obligation to care for one another. This includes an obligation of the state to care for those who cannot care for themselves. The failure of current constitutional doctrine to recognize this makes it seem as though liberal individualism is the problem, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can have individual rights and mutual care both, and indeed I believe we can't have one without the other. Thanks for provoking these thoughts. Prof. Matsuda
I don't think we can answer that question without first deciding which is the lesser evil: selfish people or poor people. If the public policy is to let everyone choose to give to the poor, then we will likely end up with a few less selfish people and a few more poor ones. Conversely, if the policy is to force (i.e., tax) the citizens to give to the poor, we be left with more selfish people and less poor ones.
While i am an avid defender of individual rights, I agree with the preacher -- there is a fundamental tension between individual rights and the interconnectedness that lies at the root of all faiths. I think we shoud avoid creating false utopias and be realistic about our ability to reconcile individual rights and interconnectedness.
Defending one's individual freedoms requires one to disregard or even facially attack the very structures that comprise this interconnectedness. For example, an American woman in the earlier 20th century (or a Saudi Arabian woman today) seeking to assert her INDIVIDUAL right to divorce, to vote, to work in certain professions, or even to drive would have to oppose her surrounding environment at every level. To gain the individual freedoms she is seeking, such a woman would have to effectively reject the rules of her country, the rules off her faith, and the laws of her town/village community. It is likely that if she fights strongly enoug hfor her individual rights, she will even be rejected by her family. The result is an assertion of individual rights, but a loss of all of the structures that provide interconnectedness. This clash between individual rights and the social networks that comprise interconnectdness play out each day in our lives, and usually the individual rights are victorious. One example that comes to mind, is the growing number of elderly people who grow old and die alone. Although a traditional notion of family would require children to take care of their parents in their later years, this old-fashioned idea is trumped by the children's individual rights to pursue a career and personal success.
Someone seeking to reconcile individual rights with interconnectedness might say that interconnectedness comes not from social structures, but some higher truth about the universe. Although this might be true, I think that the overwhelming majority of people are not able to experience interconnectedness simply as an abstract concept. Interconnectedness comes from social structures. The closer the social structure is to the individual, the greater a sense of interconnectedness it provides.(family provides probably the highest experience of interconnectedness, the church or other local organization might provide the next strongest, and so on). "Social justice" is one such abstract notion that falls completely short of providing a real sense of the interconnectedness that is at the root of all religious teaching.
The growing rate of depression in our society is evidence that abstract notions of interconnectedness are not sufficient to compensate for the breakdown of social networks that result from a pursuit of individual rights.
So what is the solution? I don't think there is one. My very point is that there is a trade-off between individualism on the hand, and interconnectedness on the other. We should be aware that the more our society pushes towards liberal notions of morality, the more we will lose out on interconnectedness. We may still choose to go with greater individual freedom. But we shouldn't pretend like this will not have costs and consequences.
Above all, we should avoid utopic thinking. Visons of utopia havsebeen at the source of the two greatest disasters of the last century. Communism is a well-known example, but harvard human rights scholar, Michael Ignatieff, has noted that the Holocaust (with its intent of exterminating the enemy of the Aryan people) was also driven by a utopic vision -- a vision of a world without enemies.
Instead of driving towards some unattainable vision of a world where individaulity and interconnectedness are both perfectly attained, as a soceity we are better off seeking ways to balance liberalism and interconnectedness to achieve the greatest good.
-Greg
Joe – sorry this response is coming too late to help you get an A in your class. I hope you will continue this blog because this discussion is very important not only for you and I as LDS to think about these things, but for those of other beliefs to observe, comment and add to our thoughts on these matters.
As far as the idea of advancing individual freedoms at the cost of disrupting the social fabric of society, I think there is definitely something to that. I agree with you and Elder Perry that individual selfishness is extremely costly to any family, group or nation and particularly so in a society like the U.S. where individualism is promoted to its utmost through the law (private property system, constitutional government that protects individual rights), the economy (free market capitalism) and the media (in a society where even “poor” individuals own more than one television and a car equipped with a radio). I also agree with the general consensus here that free market ideals do provide opportunities for good things to happen and in the world we live in, are preferable to trying to obtain some kind of utopian ideal. Yet I think the way most Americans think about their individual rights in our free market, private property, media-driven society leaves a lot to be desired.
Individualism is based on assumed values that are not always in the best interest of society, yet that is not usually the way we think about it. If you look at civil rights, I think the assumption is that each individual person possesses an inherent right not to be discriminated against. On its face, this assumption makes sense, but it is a narrow understanding of the history and context in which most discrimination has occurred and still occurs in America– where there is a brutal history of slavery and marginalization of blacks, where the assumptions of white superiority were promoted and with that a racial hierarchy where mostly darker-skinned minorities are inherently unequal, immoral and unable to contribute meaningfully to society. Civil rights isn’t just about not-discriminating against one individual, but about promoting equality and justice for those groups that have suffered the effects of discrimination. Otherwise we have courts protecting the right of Alan Bakke not to be discriminated against because he is white, or the free speech “right” to burn crosses.
If we look at the development of private property and the market system in America, it is based on the assumption that the only value that land has is economic, and thus the best thing to do with property is to tame it and develop it in a way to maximize its economic value. We might say that the individual property owner does a “good” thing for both himself, by increasing the value of his property, and for the economy, by perhaps creating revenue and jobs. Despite this “good” there are plenty of bad things – the destruction or elimination of natural resources, desecration of sacred places, etc – that might far outweigh the potential good that the public receives. Some, like Professor Joeseph Sax from Berkely, one of the founders of modern environmentalism, have couched this tension in terms of public rights versus private property rights. Sometimes there are good reasons to impose burdens on individual property owners on behalf of the public. Yet, a 25 year trend in the Supreme Court (after Penn Central) to recognize almost everything from cable installation (Loretto) to temporary (First English) to environmental or zoning regs (Nollan, Lucas, Dollan) as a taking indicated that private property rights were being recognized much more than public rights. However, a recent swing in 2002 (Tahoe Sierra) indicates that the court might be coming back to recognize that public rights take precedence over private property rights. Sax points out that public rights, like the public trust for example, have a long history within American property law and it is a misconception to construe public rights as a radical departure from the law.
The media, to me, is the greatest proponent of individualism in our society. I do appreciate the idea and the opportunity that the media creates for us – that each individual can choose to learn, to study, to listen to and become anything and potentially everything they want to be. Yet, I think this promotes the kind of individual selfishness that creates great group and social costs. Just two generations ago people did not live with TV let alone the internet. Because of that they had less opportunity to invest in themselves and they better understood the value of community and of family. Today, through mass advertising, we are taught that the way to achieve happiness, security and peace in our lives comes through the accumulation of material wealth. I think TV programs in general focus on promoting the individual – individual accomplishments, individual aspirations, individual failures, etc. Rarely do we hear stories about families, about groups, about the need for cooperation and unity. I’d like to think that with the ability to stimulate our intellects and our senses, that we would always choose to stimulate that which is good and wholesome, but obviously that is not possible when we all have that natural desire to do that which gives us the most instant pleasure and not that which brings us long-lasting happiness.
Because there is so much that promotes the individual in this society, I think that the role that families, churches and public interest groups is so important. I think these institutions are what keep us from indulging into extreme selfishness. These are the places where we learn to sacrifice and do things that don’t satisfy our immediate selfish interests.
I think there is a need to balance the idea of individualism with group and family rights both inside and outside of the law.
kanale
Post a Comment
<< Home