Freedom of Conscience

[Charles R. Anderson]

Preface

I posted this essay on my blog Reasoned Thoughts on 29 November 2004. I wrote this essay in part because of issues on my mind from the recent Presidential campaign and partly because of attitudes prevalent among some people who think they are Objectivists. I am placing it here, with minor editing, because Michael Stuart Kelly said he had read many of my essays and thought they would be of value here. He also said that he had some doubts about some of my views, so please do not assume that he agrees with me on all points. In fact, I hope to hear from him and others about what and why they may disagree. I expect that the trade of ideas will be of value to me and will make my effort to post these essays worthwhile. I hope they will stimulate my readers' thinking.

Finally, you will find that this and other essays will have some overlapping themes and ideas. The main topics that I have been trying to clarify my thinking on while writing these essays have been these:

The Complexity of the World

How a Dynamic Effort to Understand It will be Accompanied by Mistakes

How Greatly We Benefit from the Thinking of Others

The Requirement for Freedom of Conscience

The Individuality and Complexity of the Thinking Man

The Rational Need for Tolerance

The Benefits of Benevolence

These are highly interrelated topics. Many ideas have to be held in mind and organized if these inquiries are to be performed rationally. I have seen many, many instances in which this has not been done both in society at large and among those who call themselves Objectivists. In my own effort to understand these topics, there is an evolution of ideas, especially with respect to the objective and most efficacious way to develop the concept of tolerance. Our dictionary meanings of the word are often contradictory and this makes discussions of tolerance difficult. There is a good reason for this difficulty in any case: The topic is complicated and very abstract.

Well, please judge my essays for yourself and feel wonderfully free to make your own counter-arguments.

Freedom of Conscience

In this note I will develop the reasons why society and each of us as individuals should allow others the widest possible range of freedom of conscience. The burden of proof lies heavily upon us and society to provide the most rational of reasons for any use of force on our part directed at limiting another’s freedom of conscience and of their developing their subsequent values in their own life. Everyone has the right to develop and manage their own life. Everyone is inherently unique and individual, so it is inappropriate to think that we can evaluate their choices and values for them. We would not be willing to accept their unhappiness upon our lives should we make a mistake with theirs. Only each of us as an individual has the right to stake his life and happiness upon his choices of values and his choice of actions to attain and secure his values. Yet, maybe as a consequence of this lack of consequences for making the wrong choices for others, many people seem to relish using their time and effort to prescribe and force choices upon others through societal norms and beyond to making them a matter of law.

Meanwhile, they leave their own personal affairs under-attended. Curiously, some of these people point at each other’s under-attended affairs and note them as proof that others are incapable of caring for themselves, so the busybodies, acting through government, must do it for them.

Of course, the affairs of others often seem simple to the casual observer. Yet, human interactions are extremely complex. Most of us appreciate this better in our own lives then when we assess the life choices of others. When each of us knows as much as we do about the complete fabric of our own life (to borrow a phrase from David Kelley), we cannot help but to see a huge complexity of activities and relationships. It is a never-ending intellectual and emotional challenge to handle it all. But this is what makes life so rich with value and interest. It also means that errors of choice are inevitable and not infrequent. The exercise of freedom of conscience allows each of us the means to discover, develop, and alter our lives until we achieve the conditions that make us happy.

Each of us is necessarily experimenting with his own life. This gives others some opportunity to observe the results and to either follow or avoid those paths of others that they believe may be right or wrong for them. This may be a lifesaver or it may at least make others more efficient in finding the right path for their lives. Their evaluation of our actions in living our life does not necessarily affirm or deny the choices we have made for ourselves, however. Our choices are good, bad, or neutral in the context of our very rich individual lives and largely based upon a long string of daily choices and our differing natures. What is right for me may or may not be right for you.

Now, you may be concerned that I am arguing for an ethics of moral relativism. I am not. Yet, I do not think we should confuse good and bad choices with moral principles. There are moral principles appropriate for a relatively solitary life in nature. These change somewhat for a man in a primitive society where the use of force is rampant with one tribe taking anything they can get from another by force. Again, the appropriate moral principles change for men living in a relatively free and civilized society.

While our primary moral values are always based on the value of our own life and our need to use our ability to reason to maintain our life, the complete code of principles that we each have is very dependent upon our personal circumstance. A major component is determined by the kind of society in which we live. It is very important to understand that as individuals we are each so complex that we need still more moral principles to help us make the choices that apply only to our own personal pursuit of our own values. My detailed values differ from yours. My complete code of ethics starts with an Objectivist ethics, but it adds many, many principles that help me to cope with the complex choices in my own life. Some of these additional principles may be unique to me and probably are. Similarly, I expect that most thinking people will have some principles important to them that are not to me. If I try to prescribe what your choices should be in life, I may very well be at odds with some of your important moral principles. I would be messing with your freedom of conscience. You see, our freedom of conscience is as tied to our freedom of action and choice as our mind is tied to our body.

Each individual needs freedom of conscience for the following reasons:

• To formulate an idea - Simple ideas do not require that a society recognize freedom of conscience, but life and our world are complicated. Complex ideas or those standing on an understanding of complex issues of reality need to be developed by many thinkers who can make their ideas known to one another without fear of suffering violence (or excommunication, in some circumstances)
  
• To experiment with that idea and its consequences - Many ideas require that experiments be performed to test them and to illuminate the productive paths for further development. If an idea is important, whether it deals exclusively with physics or it involves the interaction of many human beings, experimentation must in many ways be used to test theory, or fallible man can and will go far astray over time.
  
• To evaluate the results - When an idea is put to use, it is essential that many minds are free to evaluate and compare their evaluations so that more effort may be put in those directions which are fruitful and less into those that are deadends.
  
• To redevelop the idea or abandon it as a failure - This is the result of evaluating the truth and consequences of ideas. Those that have problems may be corrected or must be abandoned.
  
• To improve upon an accepted idea - The idea that is evaluated as resting substantially upon a true perception of reality and has demonstrable good consequences, may often be improved upon by others with other viewpoints and experiences either now or in the future.
  
• To question an accepted idea - It is usually an unpopular role to be the one who questions the truth of a generally accepted idea. But generally accepted ideas are often wrong and have very harmful consequences. The one who questions the bad idea performs a very valuable service to everyone else. We should all be very willing to provide for the general right of freedom of conscience in order that we can enjoy the great benefit the questioner of the generally accepted idea provides us in helping us to see the rut we are in.
  

Our need to survive by using our minds makes it essential that we always err on the side of allowing others the maximum possible freedom of thought and choice. When we do this, we enrich our own lives. The result of giving others this freedom is a present in a civilized society and provides a future in which progress can be a constant expectation.

In a free society, the consequences of others' bad thoughts and subsequent acted choices fall primarily upon themselves and little upon us. On the other hand, their good thoughts and subsequently acted choices often provide us critical help in understanding life and our world. This gift of understanding has always been the basis of human progress. It is why we no longer generally die before age 30. It is why we do not work hunting and farming from daylight to sundown. It is why we rarely need to worry that a marauding band of Vikings, Visigoths, or Turks will descend upon our home and carry away our wives and children. It is why we know about atoms, electrons, stars, silicon chips, magnetic tape and hard drives, structural steel, stressed concrete, jet engines, vaccines, constitutionally limited government, drugs to lower high blood pressure, x-rays, the novels of Ayn Rand, recorded music, combustion engines, long-life batteries, computers, and a host of other wonderful things.

It is also why the world is full of interesting people, despite the fact that many people either choose or are forced to be uninteresting. Freedom of conscience, when allowed in a generous manner in a society, causes that society to flourish in ways we cannot imagine without standing back and actually observing its effects with wonder.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thank you for this essay, Charles.

I really like the following quote:

The one who questions the bad idea performs a very valuable service to everyone else.

Also, your breakdown of what is done with ideas is quite interesting.

As to some points in the article, I have two things I want to discuss. The first is that your observation about each person having his own set of principles falls directly in line with my observation about the impact of Objectivism in a rant I wrote here on OL called The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth. In it, I argue that over 98% of the people who read Rand take from her works what they like and then go on about their lives (ignoring Objectivists and anti-Objectivists like the plague).

This is as it should be. And the fact that all these people do not become converted into staunch adherents shows clearly that the whole package of Objectivism does not meet their needs. Thus, it shows that a lot of work still needs to be done to get it in a form that meets those needs (especially family, friendship and even social traditions like marriage ceremonies, funerals, etc.).

I also get the distinct impression that a free society is not what some of the more strident hardcore Randians would like, despite lip-service to the contrary...

The second point is about basing tolerance on a survival premise because interaction with others brings benefits from them. I agree with this, but only as part of the whole thing. Tolerance is practiced by a need to listen and not speak at times. Those who learn to do this greatly increase their self-esteem because their own awareness increases. (I believe that people are generally less aware of their surroundings when they are talking, since their focus is on the subject they are talking about.) In this respect, tolerance is also a health issue, since it is psychologically good for the one being tolerant.

It is more than obvious that there will be times when tolerance is bad, so criteria need to be employed. I only say that because of reading so much hairsplitting recently. Anything can be bad under certain circumstances. Hell, even walking is bad for you if you walk off a cliff.

With all things being equal and no rights being violated, the act of tolerance is a good thing in itself. There is a species level where the herding instinct is present in the psyche. This is borne out by human history. I believe that tolerance also ties in with this somehow.

Michael

[Charles R. Anderson]

Michael,

I fully agree that tolerance of people has a context that needs to be considered. Some of the later essays in this series do consider context in some of its important aspects. I will point out that the nature of the society in which one lives is a factor in determining how benevolent and how tolerant one should be, for instance.

Indeed, much of my reason for writing these essays was to set the context. The discussions prevalent among those who claim to be Objectivists and are associated with ARI commonly indicate a severe loss of context on their part. They think that tolerance is the acceptance of bad ideas and bad people. I maintain that this is not the case. I try to get them to look at the big picture of what tolerance and benevolence do for us in terms of improving our lives. Their idea is apparently that we live in a very bad society and that any bad idea is such a threat to us, that we must immediately crush it (maybe even before we know it to be a bad idea) and the person who made it. For them, tolerance is a floating concept. On the other hand, they are constantly trying to assert that they offer no Sanction of the Victim. The difference between them and me is clear. They are victims, primarily, while I am not primarily a victim. I understand that I am the net beneficiary of many wonderful gifts of knowledge and intelligent services by virtue of living in this society.

I will also point out that constantly thinking of yourself as a victim is very unhealthy. We really have a strong need as humans to believe that we have some real control over the management of our lives. It is not possible to feel this when one is a victim or thinks this is the primary way to characterize one's relationship with others.