The Problem of Future Generations: Part I

Any attempt to establish a cooperative, inter-generational morality will have to contend with the vexing puzzle known as the "Problem of Future Generations." Although this is vexing for all moral perspectives, it is especially vexing for social contract theories. Let's take a quick look at social contract theory. There are several competing formulations of social contract theory; all of which are all descended from the original eighteenth-century contractarian philosophers: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant. The eighteenth century social contract theorists were mostly concerned with the formation of national governments, however, social contract theory, if valid, ought to be equally applicable to the formation of non-governmental groups, especially businesses, military organizations, gangs, families, and sports teams. The two basic questions that face all social contract theories are: "Why join a community?" and "Why stay?" The answers to these questions are usually based on two competing theories (narratives) of human nature: communitarianism and individualism.

Communitarians since Aristotle have argued that human beings live in cooperative groups by nature. The underlying idea behind all social contract theories is that "society" is the product of deliberate cooperation. The rub here is what do we mean my "deliberate?" Back in the eighteenth century Rousseau, a communitarian, argued that human beings living "naturally" in groups develop a "general will" or, what we'd call a "mental mechanism" that predisposes us to act based on the interests of the group, even in opposition to their own self-interest. For now, let's call it altruism.  In other words, human beings living in a "state of nature" deliberately sacrifice their own self-interest for the group. Implicit in this approach is that individual contractors actually "know" specifically what those group interests entail. Here it is important to note that the social contract theorists are are profound philosophers and that their theories are enormously complex. One such complication is how to integrate social organization based on leadership and followership into their theory. In a short blog, I can't get into that right now. But I'll try to cover it later. Sorry. My friend Peter Corning, an excellent contemporary social contract theorist has written a book called The Fair Society that addresses many of the puzzles that confront communitarian social contract theory. I'll examine some of his arguments in a forthcoming entry for the APLS Blog.
  
Locke, an individualist, argued that the "state of nature" for humans is individual, and that human beings forge groups based on self-interest. Thus, communities that violate the interests of individual members tend to lose members. Why? Because there is no "general will" apart from the wills of the individuals that comprise those groups.  Hence, all "wills" are individual and all rights are individual rights. In other words, human beings "cooperate" with others and form "groups" because they deliberately and rationally conclude that at least sometimes, we are "better off" cooperating with some groups rather than others. Therefore, in the absence of a "general will" many communities simply employ coercive force to hold their community together.

Evolutionary ethicists observe that we are most likely to form groups based on "kin-altruism;" that is to say, we are genetically predisposed to cooperate with other human beings that are genetically related to us. Knowledge of genetic relatedness is less certain for males than females, therefore, males must often rely on other sensory cues, most obviously: "Does this other person(s) look enough like me to be my son, daughter, brother, sister, aunt, uncle etc? During the Pleistocene era hunters and gathers lived in small, genetically related kin groups that formed cooperative in-groups. The "general will" for kin-altruism is genetic. So how can the social contract extend beyond kin groups? Cooperative groups comprised of strangers require trust. When Pleistocene in-groups encountered neighboring out-groups that looked very different (call them strangers) they were more inclined to compete (kill them) than cooperate. Thus evolutionarily, one of the main problems for social contract theory is how to explain how strangers can ever become included within any contracting group. There are many possible explanations. One way is to follow Rousseau and postulate a complex "mental mechanism" or brain function that corresponds to a "general will."

Individualists argue that if there is a such thing as a "general will,' it would be revealed in democratic political processes. However, consensus in large groups of strangers is rarely achieved. If there is such a thing as a general will, it is more likely to emerge out of small homogenous groups than heterogenous groups comprised of multiple racial, religious, ethnic groups, or even age groups. Thus modern democratic nation states like the United States have a problem reconciling conflicting "general wills." Therefore, any large-group communitarian social contract theory will have to explain how to develop a national (or global) "general will" that trumps conflicting wills of constitutive small groups, or individuals. Peter covers this as well as any social contract theorist.

Now, back to the problem of future generations...Here's the basic problem. If there is a such thing as a "general will," how can it extend beyond the present generation? After all, future generations are, what I'd call, the ultimate strangers. They don't even exist yet! Does the present generation of contractors have duties toward  future generations of humans? Or, in other words, do future generations have rights? If so, what are those rights? We'll cover that in Part II.                                                

Group Bias in the Distribution of Health Care in the United States

As I suggested in an earlier blog entry governmentally subsidized health care in the United States is already being rationed. I think it is distributed based on an indefensible group bias; that is, politicians control access to subsidized health insurance based on arbitrary group association. Let's take a closer look at that.

Since the twentieth century, politicians have granted subsidized access to specific groups. In the 1940s, the first “group” to gain that access was comprised of individual white, male workers that worked for large unionized corporations. Later, politicians expanded access by including other groups including: the elderly, the poor, veterans, Native Americans, employees of government, and children. As a result of this irrational group-based allocation system, we now have a “maze” of health care tax-supported programs that provide various levels of health care coverage to most Americans. The current problem is that we now have a growing number of individuals that need access to health care but do not fall into any of these arbitrary groupings. Therefore, in order to gain access these “outsiders” have had to manufacture their own “group,” and lobby government for equal recognition. This new group is comprised of everyone that is not employed by a corporation that offers private health insurance, not elderly, not poor, not a veteran, not Native American, not employed by government, and/or not children.

Now any rational person that is against health care reform within its current framework must argue that these outsiders are not entitled to health coverage, even though these other groups already enjoy subsidized health insurance. Of course, no politician is going to take subsidized health care away from workers, the poor, elderly, soldiers, or children. But many politicians are opposed to adding “outsiders.” Interestingly the rest of us rarely demand that those politicians justify the inclusion of one group and the exclusion of another. Why?

Communitarianism

Communitarians argue that communities are the basic unit of human existence and that individuals can be completely explicated in terms of groups. Many if not most communitarians argue that individuals do not even exist! I believe communities are natural and an essential component of the good life, but I do not believe that we can reduce individual human beings to the communities that they spawn. One of the hallmarks of the modern era is that we can now associate ourselves with both small communities and large communities. Hence, there are both small group communitarians (that identify human fulfillment with small communities) and large group communitarians (that identify human fulfillment with large communities). In my view, small communities are supported by biological evolution, or our natural tendency to associate with our families and friends. During the Pleistocene era, say 3 million years ago, human communities were limited by the capacity for leaders to control followers. Our brains are the brains of hunters and gathers. We are naturally inclined to live in small groups. The formation of large urban communities required a lot of cultural evolution; most notably, communication technology, which facilitated the exchange of information, and weapon technologies which increased the efficiency of the use of coercive force. Now both small and large communities tend to rely on the use of coercive force, but I think large communities are more likely to actually employ it. That's because it is easier for small communities to monitor and enforce rules, while it is more difficult in large communities. That's because, we are individuals and we tend to use communities to advance our self interest. Large communities tend to accumulate free-riders that enjoy the benefits of group membership without abiding by its rules. Free-ridership is obviously less common in small communities. Unfortunately, given our unlimited capacity for fast-paced cultural evolution, small communities tend to get taken over by large communities. Some libertarians prefer to live in large communities that have a lot of rules that are impossible to monitor and enforce, while others prefer to live in small communities that have leaders that they know personally, fewer rules, and have fewer free-riders. Paradoxically, the larger the community the less efficient they become at serving the public good. However, our capacity for living, voluntarily in large groups has been enhanced by the evolution of morality; that is by our capacity to willingly comply with certain rules without being forced. I do not steal from others because I believe that it is immoral, not because I'm afraid that I will get caught and punished. I will not employ physical aggression either. Large communities, therefore, can be voluntary to the extent that their members willingly choose to not steal, keep their promises, and eschew violence. Today most human beings live in large impersonal nation states that rely more on legality (coercive force) than morality (consent) and therefore require ever-increasing levels of taxation to pay for more policemen, lawyers, judges, and prisons. As these large communities attempt to do more and more on our behalf with increasing levels of inefficiency, our tax burden increases along with our desire to avoid paying those taxes. Hence, most large communities have a very active underground economy. I am a communitarian to the extent that communities are voluntary; that is to say that individuals can freely enter or exit those communities in the absence of physical aggression or threats. Obviously, I would rather live in a society ruled by morality than legality, but not many large nation states are ruled by morality. Therefore, most libertarians are realists. We acknowledge that nation states must monitor and enforce their most important rules: rules that control theft and murder. But that's about it. The less legality, the more room there is for liberty and personal morality. Hence, my beef with communitarians is that they expect government to do too much and often tolerate the violation of the non-aggression axiom. Good communities are communities that survive because individuals CHOOSE to associate with them.

Freedom's Philosopher

Atomic Individualism

Libertarians defend "atomic individualism," or simply "individualism," however, there is a lot of disagreement over exactly what that means. First of all, I am not a recluse or a hermit! I don't live out on a mountain top or a desert island. I have many friends and I associate myself many different communities. Individualism is often misguidedly contrasted with communitarianism. I'll admit that there is a tension between the two, but I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive. Communitarians argue that human beings are inexorably social animals and that what we call our "individuality" is invariably shaped by our social relationships. Although, our identity is often shaped by our association with these communities, I still believe that we are individuals with our own unique faces, genetic codes, experiences, and personalities. I am not just an American, an Ohioian, or a Cincinnatian. Although my association with communities shapes my identity, it does not completely explain who I am. I am an individual that chooses to associate with some communities and chooses not to associate with others. Therefore, I am responsible for the communities that I choose to associate with. I also shape and reshape the communities that I associate with. If I decided that I no longer wished to be an American citizen, I could move to Canada. (I would never do that for a variety of reasons!) If Canada decided to build a wall along the border with armed guards, that would certainly influence my decision. However, if I were kidnapped, bound and gagged, and taken to Canada against my own free will that would violate the non-aggression axiom. In other words, if you are a libertarian you will defend voluntary community and reject involuntary community. The best thing about my concept of voluntary community is that provides a mechanism by which some communities become extinct. The number of Ku Klux Klan members has been in decline for a long time. Someday these organizations will become extinct. If you want to join the KKK, I certainly will not violate the non-aggression axiom to prevent you from joining. But I will certainly try to persuade you to not do it. If you join, hopefully you and your friends will not violate the non-aggression axiom. But in the final analysis, communities like that only exist because individuals choose to join them. Finally, think communities survive to the extent that they allow their members to be themselves. Toyota discovered this a long time ago! They learned to listen to what the workers on the assembly lines have to say about how to make good cars.

Freedom's Philosopher