Unlike the volunteer soldier or sailor or firefighter, the citizen living in a collectivist society is permanently and involuntarily burdened with unchosen duties to his society. It is the view that says “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and from this point forward, I will be the judge of who needs what, and who has to pay what to whom.” In the welfare state and in collectivistic government policy, we see the kind of power accorded the ship captain or the military commander applied in a new context: the “Command Economy.” The President, the Congress, or the local bureaucrat use force (or the threat of force) not merely to put an end to some state of emergency - but to direct human life as such.Ĭollectivism is the view that says “We are all in one boat” even when we aren’t all in one boat. It is another thing to “play judge” or “play God” by commanding businessmen to charge “X” price or to serve “X” client, or to demand tribute and tax from the wealthy simply for the purpose of handing that money to the poor via entitlement programs. It is one thing to “play judge” and send a fighter fighter into danger, or a soldier, especially a soldier who voluntarily enlisted. That is where the analogy to “life boat problems” or “emergency situations” breaks down. But collectivists and statists seek to apply that paradigm to human life as such and to society - society under normal circumstances. If you find yourself in an emergency and you have time to save only one group or another, it typically would be morally praiseworthy to save the many, not the few. That’s what captains, firefighters, and soldiers have in common. They must do so sometimes, because the nature of their work includes handling emergencies. A ship captain or a firefighter or a soldier must think in such terms. You may also hear the catchphrase: “We’re all in the same boat.” (Typically it is spoken by the someone who wants to declare what kind of sacrifice we all must make toward his chosen goal.) Is it ever true that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Certainly, in some sense. If the ship is in danger, a captain (especially a military captain) may order men to their death in order to help stop the disaster.įrom these cases we get phrases such as the “Lifeboat problem” - a moral thought experiment that asks what you could morally do if you were stuck in a lifeboat with others. There are contexts in which it is necessary and appropriate for a man to “play judge.” For instance, the captain of ship is responsible for law and order aboard the ship. Is this even a precisely framed question? Who is the one deciding what weights what? What is the standard of measurement? Are we playing God in some sense, deciding the fate of others? Photo via Unsplash Is it true that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Or the one”?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |