Heroism, Modernism, and the Utopian Impulse

The New Atlantis ^ | Summer 2007 | James Bowman

[shrinkermd]

Mr. Bowman has something to say and and an early paragraph is:

"... Service noted ruefully that, though discredited wherever it has been instituted, “Communism, like nuclear fuel, has a long afterlife.” Indeed it does. But it didn’t occur to him to ask why. I think it is because Communism was a powerful example of the recurring strain of utopianism in the intellectual life of the West. Communism itself may have failed, but the utopian habit of thought on which it was based lingers on even among those who find Communism repugnant and hateful—even, perhaps, among the dreaded neocons themselves. And this survival, in turn, is a result of our culture’s having nowhere else to go in its long flight away from a heroic past it is determined to reject..."

And another paragraph:

"...The point being made by Ford and his screenwriters, James Bellah and Willis Goldbeck, is that what’s needed for the establishment of civilization is, in the first instance anyway, not law but heroism. Someone has to risk his life to put an end to the threat of violence and disorder to the whole community. The problem, as in the parable of the mice, is that there is no incentive for any particular individual to be the one to bell the cat....

[shrinkermd]

This essay is well worth reading because of its evocative writing plus the ideas it trys to convey about utopianism and related subjects. It is long and hard to excerpt.

[Lucky Dog]

An interesting read…

The article’s underlying (and unstated, directly) premise is that any system of governance or economy that is not firmly grounded in human nature is doomed to failure.

Socialism and all of its utopian, fellow, “philosophy travelers” such as communism, etc., fail miserably (over time) outside of the “family” environment. The reason is simple and straight forward to any objective observer of human nature: these “systems,” regardless of any intellectual or emotional appeal, directly conflict with the “self-interest” aspect of human nature.

There are, and always have been, human beings whose “self-interest” make them willing to take what another has, by force, thievery, extortion, guile or other nefarious means. Thousands of years of human history have shown that these individuals are deterred from such activity (and not always, even then) by the threat, of actual, active use of, counter force. No law without the threat, or use of, actual force backing it has ever stopped murder, theft, embezzlement, war, piracy, etc.

Another of the author’s (directly stated) premises is that “heroes,” either, individually, or through group leadership, must confront and counter through threat, or actual use of, force those individuals who would unjustly deprive others of life, liberty or property. Of course, this true, depending upon how one defines “hero.” However, the author’s unstated premise (advanced by the examples he used) is that “heroes” must act outside the law to deter those who would unjustly deprive others.

Unless the definition of “heroes” excludes those who have been selected by society to enforce law, heroic confrontation of nefarious, evil-doers through stepping outside the law is not a necessity. In fact, a compelling case can be made that if a society invests adequately in law enforcement, the requirement for “extra-legal” “heroes” is reduced or eliminated, entirely. However, there are few things that I would hasten to add to my assertion.

First, the laws being enforced must be perceived to be just by those subject to them and those enforcing them. Second, the laws must be simple and straight-forward enough so that anyone subject to them can understand what behavior is prohibited and the consequences of violations. Thirdly, the number of laws (prohibited or restricted behaviors) must be limited enough to ensure that those subject to them are not overwhelmed. Finally, the enforcement of laws and penalties for violations must be perceived to even upon all those who are subject to the laws.

Absent the above conditions, and I am afraid I am forced to agree with the author’s premise about the requirement for extra-legal heroes.

[Philistone]

Unless the definition of “heroes” excludes those who have been selected by society to enforce law, heroic confrontation of nefarious, evil-doers through stepping outside the law is not a necessity. In fact, a compelling case can be made that if a society invests adequately in law enforcement, the requirement for “extra-legal” “heroes” is reduced or eliminated, entirely.

Who will guard the Guardians? Peace comes through a balance of forces, not by hoping that some group with a monopoly on it will be virtuous.

[Yardstick]

*Bump*

[Lucky Dog]

Who will guard the Guardians?

Again, I would cited the conditions I put at the end of my assertion.

Peace comes through a balance of forces, not by hoping that some group with a monopoly on it will be virtuous.

i have no argument except your implication of from whence cometh the "balance." Your implication (based upon the thrust of the previous discussion) that it must, of need, come from extra-legal sources is subject to principled and honest disagreement. I herewith assert such.

The "guardian of the guardians" can, and should, be the people. Of course, this type of guardianship requires a republican (small r) form of government with a strong, impartial and free "press." The presence of such precludes the requirement for extra-legal heroes.

[Philistone]

I would simply take that one step further and suggest that it is the Second Amendment which guarantees the First (and all the others). Perhaps the word “hero” goes a bit far. Unless you want to call that modicum of courage and self-reliance that our pioneer forefathers had “heroism”.

When tyranny becomes legal, than freedom becomes, by definition, extra-legal.

[Lucky Dog]

When tyranny becomes legal, than freedom becomes, by definition, extra-legal.

It appears that the discussion has run rather far afield of it origin.

Please note that I am not quarreling with your assertion that tyranny must be resisted. In fact, "tyranny" is illegal under a republican (small r) form of government. Therefore, resisting it would not be extra-legal.

Let's return to origin of the discussion: the article author's implied requirement that extra-legal "heroes" must confront evil-doers with force, or the threat thereof, to maintain society. My point was that such "extra-legal heroes" need not exist if adequate resources are devoted to law enforcement under the conditions I specified.

Are you taking exception to my specified conditions? Alternately, do assert that regardless of those conditions being met, that extra-legal "heroes" are, indeed, a requirement?

[Philistone]

I believe you are confounding “legality” with “morality”. Both the Bolsheviks in 1917 and the Nazis in 1933 came to power through perfectly legal means. Your insistance on a “republican” form of government is well-placed, but ignores the fact that societies are dynamic and not static.

America has gone from a country which understood “the tyranny of the majority over the minority” and enshrined certain inalienable rights for individuals to a country in which the state controls what you can eat, where you can smoke, how much you can drink, where you can pray, whether or not you wear a seat belt or a bike helmet.

If Hillary is elected, the state will tell you how often to have a check up and force you to pay for health insurance.

And it will be perfectly “legal” because our laws have “evolved” to the point where that sort of usurption of individual rights is tolerated. Except by those that don’t tolerate it. Are they “extra-legal heroes”? Not sure that the label matters.

[Lucky Dog]

&tYour insistence on a “republican” form of government is well-placed, but ignores the fact that societies are dynamic and not static.

Thank you for the concession. However, your observation that societies are dynamic is not relevant to the philosophical question under discussion. America has gone from a country which understood “the tyranny of the majority over the minority” and enshrined certain inalienable rights for individuals to a country in which the state controls what you can eat, where you can smoke, how much you can drink, where you can pray, whether or not you wear a seat belt or a bike helmet.

The term you chose, “the tyranny of the majority over the minority”, is interesting in that it refers to a “pure” democracy. Additionally, the state’s involvement in food safety. smoking prohibitions/limitation, alcohol-driving restrictions, etc., may have relevance in that these involvements could conceivably violate the conditions I stated earlier. However, neither “the tyranny of the majority over the minority” nor you subsequent remark were relevant to the philosophical point raised by the article’s author.
;br> If Hillary is elected, the state will tell you how often to have a check up and force you to pay for health insurance.

I could not agree more. However, as I noted with one of your statement earlier, except as it violates the conditions I specified, it is irrelevant.

And it will be perfectly “legal” because our laws have “evolved” to the point where that sort of usurpation of individual rights is tolerated. Except by those that don’t tolerate it. Are they “extra-legal heroes”? Not sure that the label matters.

…However, there are few things that I would hasten to add to my assertion.

First, the laws being enforced must be perceived to be just by those subject to them and those enforcing them. Second, the laws must be simple and straight-forward enough so that anyone subject to them can understand what behavior is prohibited and the consequences of violations. Thirdly, the number of laws (prohibited or restricted behaviors) must be limited enough to ensure that those subject to them are not overwhelmed. Finally, the enforcement of laws and penalties for violations must be perceived to even upon all those who are subject to the laws.

Absent the above conditions, and I am afraid I am forced to agree with the author’s premise about the requirement for extra-legal heroes.

[Philistone]

First, the laws being enforced must be perceived to be just by those subject to them and those enforcing them.

How many of them? ALL of them? A majority of them? Simple? two-thirds?

Second, the laws must be simple and straight-forward enough so that anyone subject to them can understand what behavior is prohibited and the consequences of violations.

Anyone? Everyone? The mentally handicapped? The insane? People with an IQ over 70?

Thirdly, the number of laws (prohibited or restricted behaviors) must be limited enough to ensure that those subject to them are not overwhelmed.

Limited to what? 100? 1000? 10,000?

Finally, the enforcement of laws and penalties for violations must be perceived to even upon all those who are subject to the laws.

Again, to EVERYONE? Or to "one educated in the art" (to steal a concept from patent law). To a majority? A qualified majority?

I understand your points, simply repeating them is getting us nowhere. You need to "cash out" your propositions (as we say in philosophy) by filling them with some sort of content than can be debated.

[Lucky Dog]

You need to "cash out" your propositions (as we say in philosophy) by filling them with some sort of content than can be debated.

All riiiiight.... Now, we're getting somewhere...

However, let me be very clear: I am not, and will not be, making assertions about what I perceive actually is or will inevitably be . I am posing philosophical points.

First, the laws being enforced must be perceived to be just by those subject to them and those enforcing them. [emphasis yours]

How many of them? ALL of them? A majority of them? Simple? two-thirds?

In theory the answer to your question is all of the laws should meet this criterion. However, functionally, the answer could be all of the laws with the exception of a small number that apply only to extremely limited number of, and very arcane, technical, areas should meet this criterion. ( Please note, again, I am not claiming this to be the case in today’s society only that it should be so.) Additionally, note that I cited the “perception” rather than the “reality” of whether laws were just.

It is worth noting that, as Jefferson opined in the Declaration of Independence, people are wont to suffer a great deal of injustice before they will rise up and demand wholesale change.

Second, the laws must be simple and straight-forward enough so that anyone subject to them can understand what behavior is prohibited and the consequences of violations.

Anyone? Everyone? The mentally handicapped? The insane? People with an IQ over 70

I think that the “legal construct” of the ordinarily, reasonably prudent man (or person if you’re into political correctness) will suffice for this point. That construct excludes those who lack sufficient mental capacity to understand the law in any case. However, the existence of the English Common Law requirements of intent and action in relation to a violation of a law are easy enough for most anyone to comprehend.

Thirdly, the number of laws (prohibited or restricted behaviors) must be limited enough to ensure that those subject to them are not overwhelmed. [emphasis yours]

Limited to what? 100? 1000? 10,000?

This is a tougher one to answer. If memory serves me correctly there are 613 commandments in the Old Testament that apply to Jews. However, as I also recall, these were summarized into 2 guiding and overarching commandments, that if obeyed, would not allow violations of any of the others (with the possible exception of ritual, diet and dress restrictions).

Additionally, Old Testament criminal code, if you will, was essentially 10 laws or commandments. Hammurabi’s code was between the 10 and 613. However, all of these seem to boil down into a few principles of behavior: don’t intentionally lie, cheat, steal, kill or otherwise mistreat your fellow humans and fulfill your obligations to keep the community functioning properly, e.g., paying taxes, etc.

Finally, the enforcement of laws and penalties for violations must be perceived to be even upon all those who are subject to the laws. [emphasis yours]

Again, to EVERYONE? Or to "one educated in the art" (to steal a concept from patent law). To a majority? A qualified majority?

Again, allow me to use the legal construct of the ordinarily, reasonably prudent man (or person). As I pointed out before, please note that I specified the perception as being critical contrasted with an objective reality.

Has this exposition put enough cash out there on my postulations for you?

[RightWhale]

If the author credits sources such as Plato and Vico it might be worth reading.

[RightWhale]

• If Hillary is elected, the state will tell you

  It will anyway. Hillary!08 does not appear to have the historical nor philosophic background to have a clue, so there are those behind her who do, and they are already in charge.

[Philistone]

We are indeed getting somewhere.

1) My emphasis referred to "who perceives it to be just", not "which laws." Since you use the same argument in 2, I will respond there.

2) - ordinarily, reasonably prudent man...

Petito principi. Reasonable men will differ on all sorts of questions. "Ordinary" means "most", or "the majority". Prior to 1543, "reasonable" men believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. Prior to 1887, "reasonable" men believed that there existed a cosmic aether through which electromagnetic waves propagated.

3) By adopting a modified "rule utilitarianism" [NB: No law of ethics can require a man to immolate himself even if by doing so the sum total of happiness is increased. Doesn't mean that a man can't throw himself on a grenade to save his family or his comrades. Simply that no ethical law can "require" someone to do so in all instances.] we might get down to some reasonable number of rules, but only if they are worded so vaguely as to be almost completely useless in law. We could also, by adopting a Kantian "categorical imperative", reduce that to ONE law: [Paraphrasing here] "act in such a way that you would be willing to live in a society in which EVERYONE followed the rule under which you acted". Again, difficult to create a system of "laws" that way.

4)See 2.

[Lucky Dog]

&otPetito principi. Reasonable men will differ on all sorts of questions. "Ordinary" means "most", or "the majority". Prior to 1543, "reasonable" men believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. Prior to 1887, "reasonable; men believed that there existed a cosmic aether through which electromagnetic waves propagated

Your point is taken… However, allow me to counter with the proposition that we are not discussing cosmology or physics in which there are (theoretically) absolute answers. Rather, we are taking about rules (laws) of reasonable human behavior. Unless you wish to bring into the discussion the potential source of such a set of rules (natural law, enlightened self interest, etc.), then this portion of the argument must end with the “majority of reasonable people being in agreement” as to what those laws should be.

… "act in such a way that you would be willing to live in a society in which EVERYONE followed the rule under which you acted" Again, difficult to create a system of "laws" that way.

This is a modified statement of the “enlightened self-interest” argument. Consequently, it has to do with the philosophical source of what reasonable people may choose to agree upon for laws.

In one sense, it very important in obtaining reasonable people’s agreement on what laws are just to have a common philosophical source for law. For example, “We hold these truths to be self evident… created equal… endowed by their Creator…,” etc. However, whether the source of agreement is natural law, enlightened self-interest, Judeo-Christian tradition, certain core values guide agreement upon individual liberty and acceptable constraints thereon versus those put forward under sharia or other systems. Regardless of what reasonable people agree upon for laws, the original issue under discussion was whether, or not, “extra-legal” heroes were a requirement for enforcement.

With the enforcement premise broached, we are back to one of my original premises: There are, and always have been, human beings whose “self-interest” make them willing to take what another has, by force, thievery, extortion, guile or other nefarious means. Thousands of years of human history have shown that these individuals are deterred from such activity (and not always, even then) by the threat, or actual, active use of, counter force. No law without the threat, of or use of, actual force backing it has ever stopped murder, theft, embezzlement, war, piracy, etc.

To this premise I added: …a compelling case can be made that if a society invests adequately in law enforcement, the requirement for “extra-legal” “heroes” is reduced or eliminated, entirely.

To the above premise I added some conditions without which I conceded that there may, in deed, be a requirement for “extra-legal” heroes. However, with my previously cited conditions in place, I see no need for such “extra-legal” heroes.

With the debate again focused on the original article’s premises, do you offer counters to my assertion that with certain conditions I have outlined, …a compelling case can be made that if a society invests adequately in law enforcement, the requirement for “extra-legal” “heroes” is reduced or eliminated, entirely.

[Philistone]

Since much of your thesis turns on the phrase “law enforcement” which we have yet to thrash out, please let me know whether the following adequately describes what you mean:

“Law Enforcement”: an abstract noun which refers to a minority of individuals within a state empowered by said state to utilize, individually or collectively, overwhelming and overpowering force against other members of the state for the purpose of enforcing a particular interpretation of the laws of the state (either explicitly those of the state or tacitly those of the law enforcer).

Am I close?

[Lucky Dog]

Am I close?

In general, yes. However, I would hasten to add that in a republican form of government there are a few qualifiers that must be added:

Consequently, allow me to offer some modifications to your posited definition for the sake of "republicanism:"

To the phrase ... overwhelming and overpowering force... I would add only as proportionately necessary to overcome resistance.

To the phrase ... for the purpose of enforcing a particular interpretation of the laws of the state (either explicitly those of the state or tacitly those of the law enforcer). I would add after the words, "interpretation of the laws of the state" agreed upon by the representatives of the majority fully enfranchised voters....

I think we now have an agreed upon definition from which to continue our discussion. BTW, I apologize for the delay in response. Additionally, I must also inform you that my next opportunity to respond will not be until this afternoon.

[Philistone]

only as proportionately necessary to overcome resistance.

I realize I'm picking nits here, but:

o·ver·whelm·ing –adjective
1. that overwhelms; overpowering: The temptation to despair may become overwhelming.
2. so great as to render resistance or opposition useless: an overwhelming majority.

I may be able to render you unconscious with a blow to the head with my fists. Alternately, I could do so with a baseball bat, a crowbar or some other large blunt object. The question of proportionality is moot since whichever method is chosen as "proportional" it still allows me to overpower and overwhelm you.

Let me admit, for the sake of argument, that we can develop a set of laws such that:
a) the number of such laws is so limited that a reasonable citizen of the community can understand each and every one

b) each law admits of only one interpretation, said interpretation being agreed upon by the representatives of the majority fully enfranchised voters....

We are nevertheless faced with the question of the "interpretation of fact." E.g. "Running a red light is illegal except when stopping for said light would put the lives or safety of the occupants of that vehicle or those of neighboring vehicles at risk." Seems like a perfectly reasonable law the interpretation of which is straight-forward. And yet, each individual case of red-light-running must be interpreted. The driver of such a vehicle may have concluded that slamming on his brakes would endanger himself and his passengers as well those of the car behind. Objective, third-party observers might disagree.

Let's take another example. Let us say that you have the right to defend yourself, your family or your property if they are threatened by an outsider. What constitutes a "threat"? Let's say the intruder has a knife while you have a gun. Is that a "threat" such that you have the right to use the gun even though you are 6'4" 240 lb while the intruder is a 13 year old kid? How about if the intruder is 6'4" 240 lbs and you are a 5'2" 110 lb female?

Bleh. This is getting way too long. Two things:

Let us assume that which is actually the fact: that "law enforcement" represents a small minority of individuals within a state. Just for the sake of argument, let's call that minority "10%". You would grant them the use of force only as proportionately necessary to overcome resistance. . Which resistance? Or more precisely, how much resistance? Should the 10% have enough force to overcome the resistance of all of the 90% of the others? 50%? 40%?

Secundo (and thanks more making me think some of this stuff through - haven't done this in years!) and apropos of nothing:

It's interesting to see how the Federal Gov't has evolved from a "rule based utilitarianism" (something like "following the Constitution will provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number") to an "act based utilitarianism" under FDR (New Deal, TVA). "We realize that we are breaking the rules, but the "act" of bringing electrcity to the Tennessee Valley will increase the sum total of human happiness and is therefore justified."

What is truly frightening is that with "it's for the children" or "if it saves just one life", American politicians and those that vote for them have jettisoned utilitariansim altogether. It is now permissible to reduce the sum total of human happiness ( or "freedom", "liberty" in a bit of slight-of-hand which I don't feel like justifying right this second) to increase the happiness of a small handful of individuals.

[Blind Eye Jones]

I think you guys are the same guy... and if you’re not you might as well be. Great points and a lively debate!

[Philistone]

I don't think we're the same person, but I remain open to countervailing arguments... ;-)