Hi Ham, > I threw out this question because you two are discussing morality in terms > of "higher and lower levels", whereas this forces you to think in terms of > Values: Which is more moral? A collectivist society in which no one is free > but no one is hungry, or an individualist society in which everyone is free > but a few go hungry. > > Platt suspected it was a "trick question", but gave me a direct answer. > > Give me the individualist society as more moral. > > Ron seems to feel that either answer is a trade-off. Apparently he believes > that inasmuch as we are "slaves to survival" we can never be free. > I think > it depends on how one defines "free". > My own opinion is that freedom is > defined by degrees > responsibility. Freedom is relative to the values one > holds. > In each instance stated above, one freedom is exchanged > for > another. In the collectivist society the people enjoy > freedom from > finding and maintaining food, housing health > care and clothing but they > exchange the freedom of > personal choice. > > In the individualist society > they are free to choose anything > they wish but are burdened with the > responsibility of attaining > and maintaining food, clothing, health care > and housing, > they bear full responsibility for their own survival. > > So > who is more free? The one who is a slave to survival > or the one who is a > slave to society? > > Arlo chimed in wanting to parse the data. Apparently it's the number of > individuals affected rather than the principle (value?) of freedom that's > important to him. > How are they "not free"? > How many are "a few"? > > There is no "right" answer. I framed the question from a quotation by David > Kelly, founder of the Objectivist Center, which I believe is the official > Ayn Rand institute. (I can hear Arlo's loud "a-Haa!") The theme of my > Values Page this week [www.essentialism.net/balance.htm] happens to be > "Misplaced Altruism", and I found these paragraphs from Kelley's treatise on > "Altruism and Capitalism" a useful rebuttal to the argument for > government-sponsored welfare: > > "If we had to choose between a collectivist society in which no one is free > but no one is hungry, and an individualist society in which everyone is free > but a few people starve, I would argue that the second society, the free > one, is morally preferable. No one can claim a right to make others serve > him involuntarily, even if his own life depends on it. > > "But this is not the choice we face. In fact, the poor are much better off > under capitalism than under socialism, or even the welfare state. As a > matter of historical fact, the societies in which no one is free, like the > former Soviet Union, are societies in which large numbers of people go > hungry." > > Thanks for your opinions. folks. I think they raise some interesting new > questions about human freedom as related to value.
Thanks for the context of the question, Ham. I see my instincts are still valid. The follow-up commentary to the question is right on. Pirsig would no doubt approve the statement that the "poor are much better off under capitalism than socialism . . ." due to better access to Dynamic Quality in a free market society. More moral indeed! Best regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
