As humans our very survival, both personally and as a species, are determined by our ability to
compromise and form some kind of working contract with people we don’t really understand.
We might think of ethics as the study of this problem. In that regard it seems appropriate to consider
Montaigne as one of the great ethicists of history not because he designed some grand system like Kant
or Bentham neither because of his ability for empathy, although that too was considerable.
The crux of Montaigne’s greatness in ethics comes in his fundamental determination not to confuse
his own empathy with real knowledge of another person.
Empathy is an incredible tool for understanding others, a tool it often seems the world is in
great need of. However, our empathizing with others can never hope to equal a true understanding of
their experience. Montaigne in his resolute belief in that Socratic maxim “The only true wisdom is in
knowing you know nothing” understood this, and in his essays his deference to the experiences of
others is representative of this humility. This humility is fundamental for the success in any ethical
enterprise.
In the world of law humility is the fundamental necessity for the liberal principals that govern
most of the contemporary world. Without an acknowledgment of our own personal limitations freedom is pointless.
If one man knows the experience of another perfectly and knows whats best for them then
why should common people be given freedom? In modern times its easy to treat such questions as
simply rhetorical and to move past them as the justice of inalienable human rights for all people seems
to most, myself included, self-evident. But the questions are worth asking, as the practical answer helps
to demonstrate how important this understanding of our own limitations are for the general prosperity
of all people.
The simple answer to why give freedom to people at all is that the evidence indicates that
individuals are best suited to make their own choices. Take for instance the success of worker owned
co-ops, the individual worker’s experience is best suited to guide their work. The education of a corporate
manager simply cannot equal the specific experience of an everyday worker. Or for another example
the recent research done into the poverty alleviating potential of just giving people money.
Experts are made from decades of experience and training no one possesses that for anyone but
themselves. The strength of freedom is the acknowledgment of this limitation. Without this
acknowledgment every aspect of our life becomes those painful experiences of getting a new micro-
managing boss who’s certain they know the best way: unproductive, frustrating, and ultimately
unsustainable. We’re happiest when we conform to reality, and the reality is as Montaigne knew all we
can know is ourselves, act like it.
A possible detraction
1. If everyone is an expert on what's in their best interest than why do we still often make poor choices?
While my report primarily focuses on more or less giving people sovereignty over their own life
and not trying to prescribe what's best for them another important part of this acknowledgement
of limited human understanding is that even those that know the most on a subject (in this case
ourselves) will still inevitably get something wrong by that same human fallibility that makes
freedom necessary for any effective way to govern a society.
Discussion Questions:
1. If for the sake of this question we can never know what is best for someone else
then what is the role of advice in determining what one should do?
Now the answer to this may seem obvious, but I think we often make a mistake of not articulating
what we consider to be obvious and letting that ambiguity trip us up later. To put it simply even
though every sentient being experiences the world in a different way there are still marked similarities
between different sets of experiences. For instance, an older married couple has experienced a great
of the same problems and young couple will despite the fact they obviously are different people
who have lived in very different times facing very different circumstances.
2. Where are the limits of this freedom?
It'd be simple to say when people lack the capacity to pursue their interests effectively,
but to me that notion carries with it significant problems. For instance, a child, who I feel
most would agree should not be given the same freedoms as an adult effectively persues
their own interests. When they cry they're given food or changed or whatever they need,
they cry to have that desire met. So it might be said that a better way to determine who
should practice this freedom are those who can take care of themselves. This definition is
far from perfect, but I feel it is sufficient for a wide array of situations due to the subjectivity
implicit in it. What I mean is the skills necessary to take care of one's self are of course radically
different from those required to survive in 12th century Holland and the limits of freedom
should reflect that different capabilities might be required to act on that freedom.
References:
Montaigne, Michel de. Essays. Dent, 1965.
Plato, and Michael C. Stokes. Apology of Socrates. Aris & Phillips, 1997.
Thanks for the great semester everyone!
- Tom Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment