A Libertarian Problem with the Military Pt. 2

Mr. Hornberger replies... and I respond. Note the comments by Mr. Hornberger are presented as they were sent to me.

Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting feedback on my article. First of all, I couldn't agree with you more about your assessment of basic training in the air force, but wouldn't you agree that it has always been rather cush, especially compared to that in the army? And I could be wrong but I've got a hunch that "drop down for 10" is still an integral part of training at Quantico. I also agree with your point about NCOs and boot camp. I should have made that clear in my article. However, I must disagree with your comparisons between the military mindset and way of life and that of civilian life. For example, your comparison of the "contract" signed by soldiers and that signed by people in the private sector, including sports teams, is totally inapt. Please permit me to explain to you why. In the military, the contract that the person signs effectively requires him to surrender his conscience, especially as part of obeying orders to kill people. That is, soldiers are expected to obey the orders of their superior officers and their commander in chief to kill people by invading another country, regardless of whether such an invasion is morally or legally justified or not. That's why basic training--left-face and right-face--etc is so important--to inculcate a sense of conformity and obedience and loyalty--and not questioning whether the president should be invading another country or not. For example, if the president today told soldiers, "I am ordering you to kill Bolivians as part of an invasion of their country to oust their socialist president," 99.99 percent of American soldiers would obey those orders. During the invasion, they would proudly proclaim, "We're killing the bad guys." Only one or two would say, "My conscience will not permit me to kill people who don't deserve to die." Most all of them would say, "I don't need to exercise my conscience. My boss has decided to deploy me to Bolivia and I have a right to obey his orders because that's the contract I signed. The same applies to an invasion of Venezuela, Panama, Cuba, Granada, or whereever. How do we know this? Because we know that only one soldier--Lt. Watada--refused orders to attack Iraq, a country that never attacked the U.S. If U.S. soldiers would faithfully obey orders to attack Iraq, they'll faithfully obey orders to attack any country and kill countless people in the process. Don't forget that an estimated 650,000 Iraqis have been killed, none of whom ever attacked the U.S. When added to the 350,000 Iraqi children killed by the sanctions, that's close to 1,000,000. That's not a small number of people killed by U.S. soldiers. Even thought Watada has refused orders to attack and kill people who have never attacked the U.S. -- and even though a war of aggression was punished as a war crime at Nuremberg--the Pentagon is doing its best to punish Watada for refusing orders to commit an immoral and illegal act. I don't know of any sports team that orders its players to intentionally kill people. In fact, my impression is that there are severe infractions for intentionally or even accidentally fouling another player. Moreover, the danger that the American people face is that the president's military would obey orders to employ their force against them--against Americans. That is, if the president ordered U.S. soldiers to kill and torture Americans, they would obey those orders too, especially if the president told them that national security depended on it. And if a soldier refused orders to do so, he would be punished, just as with Watada. After all, how many soldiers have you seen resign or protest the torture of Jose Padilla or any of the people at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, or the CIA overseas torture centers? How many refused to participate in the wrongdoing? How many CIA agents, who in reality serve as the president's secret private army, have been indicted for killing and torturing detainees? They faithfully followered orders,which is exactly why they've been indicted in Germany and Italy. After all, you don't really think that they're going to be extradited to those countries to stand trial, do you? How many soldiers and CIA agents have protested the CIA's rendition program? As I understand it, Capt. Fishback is the only officer who has taken a public stance against the torture. Our Founding Fathers clearly understood the differences between militirism and the civilian way of life. I assume you're familiar with their antipathy toward standing armies and their preference for citizen soldiers (no, not the National Guard--that's a govt operation), but just in case you're aren't, here are a few quotes to reflect upon: Madison: A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. St. George: Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. Henry: A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? Henry: that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Pennsylvania Convention: as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power. U.S. State Department website: Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth. Fields and Hardy article on Third Amendment: The experience of the early Middle Ages had instilled in the English people a deep aversion to the professional army, which they came to associate with oppressive taxes, and physical abuses of their persons and property (and corresponding fondness for their traditional institution the militia). This development was to have a profound effect on the development of civil rights in both England and the American colonies.... During the seventeenth century, problems associated with the involuntary quartering of soldiers and the maintenance of standing armies became crucial issues propelling the English nation toward civil war. Finally, I would agree with you that boot camps tear people down. But we should keep in mind that the means by which to producta mindset of conformity and obedience rather than a means for nurturing human growth and development with independent thinking and exercise of conscience. I would like to invite you to subscribe to our FFF Email Update. Also, be sure to check out our big June 1-4 conference: Restorign the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties: http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/index.asp

Best regards and thanks again, Jacob Hornberger

I also appreciate your reply.

I addressed my comments to your article as written, not to what you may have intended. Your comments regarding boot camp were very general. Speaking to the cushiness of USAF Basic Military Training, I think that would be a matter of perspective. While it may be viewed as cushy by the sister services, I imagine it is not viewed as such by the millions of people who are unable or unwilling to submit to even its ‘relatively’ lower expectations and requirements. Further, while all the services share some goals with their boot camps, they tailor much of it to a specific audience or population groups.

I queried a marine regarding push ups in boot camp. As of 1990, push ups were used in their training process. I have not queried further as the original statement was yours. It is my belief that future articles regarding the military would benefit from more specificity and fact checking.

I never feel that I made a comparison between the military and civilian mindset. For one thing, the civilian mindset is incredibly diverse and the mindset of military members, as stated in my last message, is hardly uniform. I made a comparison between organizations based on teamwork and traditions that serve no purpose other than their existence as traditions and their unifying experiences. In this I think a sports analogy is appropriate. Yelling and certain types of drill may make no difference to the particular sport at hand, but the coach is seeking to create a team that is greater than the sum of its parts. Traditions, such as those I described in my prior message, simply exist to bond groups. The military is composed of its own traditions and they serve similar purposes.

I also am forced to disagree with some of your feelings regarding the contract. Your article focused primarily on the applications of boot camp not the utilization of the military in present world events. Being a lawyer, you must be familiar with the concept of an illegal contract. It seems that you propose that the potential performance of illegal acts renders the whole idea of the military contract invalid. However in the time frame under discussion, boot camp, I think you must concede there is nothing illegal or immoral even with the standardization of an organization, push ups, drill and inspections that are agreed upon by both parties. You also extend the argument at this point to conscientious objection where before the example you used was going fishing. Those represent entirely different situations and while one can be given serious thought the other cannot.

I do not think I would put forth that the purpose of the military institution is to create moral thinkers or nurture human growth; it is certainly not a church. However, I do think it puts more emphasis on ideas of integrity and character then other institutions. The expectations are higher. This can be witnessed by the recent AF Academy ‘scandal’ regarding what would be in most eyes a pathetic case of cheating. This same event at another institution would not even make the campus paper, let alone CNN. What you identify as a problem, I would more apply to an institutional respect for civilian oversight. The military member is free to vote and appeal to his representation in the manner any citizen can. But when the civilian government acts then the military submits. This is in line with most of the quotes you provided from the founders. This obviously does have both good and bad applications in practice. However a military that does not submit to the orders of its civilian government is one more likely to march on Rome, so to speak. I am curious what institution you think does work towards the promotion of human growth and independent thinking. I hope with all my heart you aren’t implying the American university system. At this point I will submit a comment my father made when I directed him to your article. “The comparison to public school is erroneous. The military reduces chaos and enhances focus. Ultimately a young recruit focuses on a particular skill set despite their public school experience. The public and private schools conduct a one size fits all program usually so that their students can get into a one size fits all university. Even the military sizes people in equipment, uniform and marching...”

What disturbs me however is the more direct burden you place on the military member to uphold certain lines of thought than you would put on others. You want a small segment of the population to put their financial lives, families and even physical liberty at stake for your point of view. The view you, and one I would not claim differently, believe as correct. But I ask you, where are the libertarians who take these shots at the military? They publish on websites and run organizations and send newsletters around. The founding fathers may have abhorred a standing army, but enough of them physically rose up against that which they found incompatible with freedom as they defined it. Where is the similar physical and moral courage in this generation? You want resignations of service members. Where is the resignation of the engineers and manufacturers of our weapon systems? Where are the resignations of the politicians? Where is the exodus of people who believe that we are an evil warmongering country? Where is the refusal of the taxpayer to finance the war fought in their name? People submit to things they disagree with all the time out of utility. To most people, what is good for them and their family ultimately trumps what happens to another group. That is the nature of human existence. I would also ask you to cite what legal American entity (cite case and court please) that has determined that this current military action is illegal. Until that happens the soldier is bound by his oath to fulfill the orders of his civilian government. If you are basing this simply on your moral feelings about the war then that will mean there are thousands of different opinions on the morality of the situation. Who is the soldier to obey?

If the president orders anything, I do not believe 99.99 percent of soldiers (as our general term for all service members apparently) would proudly proclaim anything. Again, some people will feel as you describe. Many more will simply worry about their buddies, how long they will be away from their families and if they will be hurt or killed. I will concede that a lot will probably at least feel that what they are doing is valid or acceptable because the government said it was okay. How is that different from general culture and society? People conflate legality and morality frequently. Culture across the board is shaped by what is considered legal. Perhaps you feel that because the soldier deals in death that his offense is worse. But Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death. The agents who steal liberty in my view could be viewed as worse than the agents who steal life. And who has truly stolen more liberty than lawyers? In your own field sir, can you state that the profession of Law and the Attorney’s Oath has resulted in more honest applications than the military and the oath that service members take? For the right price you can certainly find a lawyer who will say anything. You can find a lawyer who will say ‘if the glove doesn’t fit’ regardless of whether he knows for a fact his client is guilty. And lawyers do this without fear of retribution from the organization or even something as general as a mistaken belief in the good of the country or ‘defending our freedoms’. Do we not have lawyers claiming that Habeas Corpus is not a right? Do we not have lawyers involved in putting Padilla away? Whose character is higher sir, the group who might in the future turn against the people or the group that effectively already has?

I also find your statements on Watada interesting. While not familiar with this case directly, I am curious if this Lieutenant is likely to face branding or a firing squad. You seem to feel that taking a conscientious stand should not impart any risk or discomfort. I think that is unrealistic. The moral high ground, the position of righteousness etc can be lonely and harsh places. I think the example of Jesus and the apostles would suffice to prove that point. While one might be able to say that a 18-21 year old enlisted person might not have the knowledge, thanks again to the public school that was one of the focuses of your article, about the use of the military, I find it hard to have sympathy for a 22-24 year old person who took the oath of a military officer being so ignorant. Assuming Watada chose to object for the reasons you state as opposed to justifying fear with high sounding causes (which really is no different then justifying killing with high sounding causes in terms of the truth of our actions) then temporary suffering is a suitable exchange for a preventing a mark on your soul. Perhaps Watada is not being treated that terribly anyway. I do not think George Washington was very agreeable to people who wanted to leave his army either. As for sports teams, you should take a look at baseball and hockey and give some thought to the ‘code’ they have (though granted, not killing).

I am familiar with the majority opinion of the founding fathers on a standing military. I imagine they would have antipathy towards a large amount of what passes for American civilization now. However, they did make allowances in the Constitution for a standing navy. The reason, I believe, being that a navy could not readily be created and stood up. Unfortunately the modern military is the exact same way. You cannot manufacture and field a modern force in a short time. What answer the founding fathers would have come up with for this particular problem would be pure speculation.

All this being said however, it is my fervent hope that the American people put reigns on the governments use of the military. I am not optimistic, as the American people have not put reigns on the government in many areas that I can think of. Thank you for your time.

P.S. I think the following news piece demonstrates the variety of opinion in the military. Additionally, these members seem to place strong emphasis on submission to civilian authority.

P.P.S. Wall of text crits you for 9000 damage... you die.

Et tu America?

Los Angeles is at the leading edge of a U.S. demographic trend, with half of its workforce immigrants, many of them unskilled and speaking little English.

As baby boomers retire, the same pattern will emerge across the country, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday. Demographers estimate that by 2025 most of the growth in the workforce will be from immigrants.

Suppose that in some ways the decline of America mirrors that of ancient Rome... we allow the 'barbarians' to settle inside the empire for the purpose of filling our armies etc... The result ultimately was the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the continuance of the Eastern Roman Empire... If the fate of America is the same, what portion will reconstitute itself as the Eastern Empire...

Or, are we instead looking at the end of the Republic and waiting for an Augustus to usher in a new society?

A Libertarian Problem with the Military Pt. 1

Mr. Hornberger does not let facts get in the way of a 'good' principle.

Public schooling is much like the military. What is the first thing that the military does to new recruits? No, not teach them to fight or kill. That comes later. First comes boot camp, a seemingly nonsensical period of time in which soldiers are ordered to drop down for pushups at the whim of an officer. Soldiers learn to march together in unison, mastering such movements as right-face and left-face. They’re taught to respond without hesitation with “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” to an officer barking questions a few inches away from their face.

Why? Why does the military spend time teaching those things to new soldiers? After all, none of them comes in very handy once the actual fighting begins.

The reason is very simple: to mold each person’s mindset into one of strict conformity and obedience. That is, higher-ups in the military know that if they can compel a person to do something as ridiculous and nonsensical as a right-face and a left-face, then there is a greater likelihood that that person will obey other orders without question.

Or if a person can be taught to obey orders to march in unison within a group of people, all of whom are wearing the same uniform, there is a strong likelihood that such a person will lose his sense of individuality and instead simply consider himself part of the collective.

That is the real value of military boot camp – it very quickly eliminates all notions of individuality within the human being and makes him feel that conformity and obedience are the only acceptable states of mind.

Mr. Hornberger,

While generally agreeing with the thoughts behind your recent column on Lewrockwell.com regarding public schools, I must take exception to some of your statements regarding the military. All to often on Lewrockwell.com statements concerning the military are made that are either erroneous or denigrating simplifications. In many of these cases what seems to be revealed is a complete lack of personal knowledge on the military at all, and opinions based more on antipathy than reason.

Boot camp as you describe is not a nonsensical time. It is also certainly not uniform in its application across the services and not uniform in its application in a particular service over time. The Air Force for example does not allow officers to drop recruits for pushups. Most frequently, the officers have little involvement in the daily process as that is left to enlisted members on special duty assignments. I question whether you would have a similar complaint if this was a sports team. If upon joining a football team the coach yelled at everyone and required them to run laps and do push ups regardless of its application to the game at hand. In both this sports situation and the military, the recruit voluntarily signed up to submit to certain rules and standards in exchange for financial compensation, training or personal fulfillment. In essence we have a contract that requires both parties to fulfill certain obligations. From the libertarian perspective, what complaint can be made against someone who chooses to submit to an institution that desires conformity or makes one do push ups (if that were true).

Much of the background for things in basic military training comes from military tradition. The goal is to build unit cohesion and a sense of tradition. This is no more silly than the Fighting Irish slapping a sign on the way to the field or the tradition of dotting the I is for Ohio State. Also the theory is that if you cannot trust someone to learn basic skills such as marching, clothes folding and dormitory or barracks cleaning, how can you trust them with responsibility over equipment valued in the millions of dollars and the lives of other people. Remember, the group you are discussing here is generally age 18-21. No other organization gets more out of this age group. At 25 a military member might expect to have more responsibility and span of control then most of his peer group. Whether you like the purpose that this is put to is an issue different from the effectiveness of the military's method of grooming technical expertise or leadership skills.

There is some truth in the goal of raising the level of obedience and conformity to achieve certain results in crisis situations. That is the purpose of training in most every field. This is particularly true in sports. But it is simplistic to say that the military is unquestioning up and down the chain regarding directives. The military is generally of the philosophy that at a certain point the discussion has taken place and the decision made. At this point we revert back to the voluntary nature of the contract signed. The military must be this way. It is essential for it to function in the environment in which it does. If you do not like the use of the military then it must be taken up with the civilian leadership who ultimately assigns the missions and objectives.

I wonder if you know many military people. You speak of them as if they are Borg. Many people do take pride in their chosen occupation. But it is ridiculous to make a statement that indicates that in any environment everyone thinks the same. People join for different reasons, gravitate to different areas of service for different reasons and choose to stay or go for different reasons.

Boot camps are effective at breaking down people. Though certainly only effective on people who desire to successfully complete the experience and are at least partially committed to their choice. The purpose is hardly as nefarious as you make though. It is simply more expedient then dealing with the irrelevancies of everyone's background. You cut out the personal likes and dislikes and create an environment where people look for reasons to work together as opposed to reasons to dislike each other. Eventually most groups reform, but it is effective as a uniform starting point for a career. Something everyone can point back to and say 'I did that too' (frequently with laughter). This makes it much easier to continue training in the technical fields that come later.

At this point in time it is simply silly to talk about the draft unless you refer to another country. The military employs no such thing. It is an all volunteer force. We could have another discussion on things like stop loss etc. Points can be made there, but the draft scenario at current time does not warrant serious discussion.

You are right about how a group would respond to a recruit who said he was going fishing. First, he is violating his contract and word. He actually voluntarily swore an oath to behave in a certain way. What value is a contract or a person's word if they do not honor it. Secondly, he is letting people down who depend on him. This would be no different than if Peyton Manning said he wanted to go fishing on Sunday afternoon. In fact, I can think of few employers who wouldn't respond negatively to someone announcing he wanted to go fishing rather than fulfill his obligations.

To frequently on libertarian sites the military is viewed in a way that would never be applied to another organization. I speak of the lack of acceptance that it is a voluntary arrangement, there is a contract, that somehow people libertarians would treat as adults in all other situations are now children who should be shielded from evil recruiters etc. I hope in the future you will at least speak more honestly or more informed when making the comparison between the military and other organizations.

Jake

And I know just what I would change if I went back in time somehow but there is nothing I can do about it now. – Willie Nelson

Someone very precious to me asked me if I knew what in my life I would change if I could go back and do it over. Basically it is a question that revolves around regret. Who does not regret in life? Who does not wish that they had made different decisions at different points? Who does not wish that they had chosen to love differently, apply themselves differently to important tasks or taken advantage of opportunities now so apparent in hindsight? What makes this a difficult exercise, at least for me, is the realization that it is hard to separate out how certain failures and blows in life truly shaped who you are. Perhaps there is one thing so good in your life that it almost completely defines you and that one good thing only came as a result of a series of missteps. Remove a misstep and your life becomes unrecognizable. But, given this premise and some thought, I think I have come to the one thing I know I would change… Jake.

Jake was a little puppy I found abandoned outside the place I was living at the time. He truly must have been one of the cutest puppies ever to see the light of day. I took him in immediately. Unfortunately for him, my compassion exceeded my competence and capability to look after him. I think if there is a mistake that can be made with a dog I made it with him. The living situations I was in and the other demands of my life as well as simple youthful irresponsibility and self-focus placed Jake into a lonely existence. Even the addition of another dog at a later point could not undue the personality that had arisen through the intervening years.

Finally, at a particularly low point in life, I could not deal with the destruction and barking and all the troubles that went with it. I had a friend come and take him away to the city pound. This no doubt resulted in his death. The last image of him described to me was that of a keeper hooking him around the neck with a noose and dragging him off with Jake struggling. It is a mental image that even years later still haunts me from time to time.

What I would give to be able to go back to any point in time in my relationship with that dog. I truly believe that if I had been different so would he. I think he would have been a special dog. Sometimes I hope that it is in God’s plan that the animals that meant something to us in life can be restored to us and that I can do better for him. In this life however, in this situation, there is only regret…

… and regret is just a memory written on my brow and there is nothing I can do about it now.

The Non Dilemma

Wherein Mr. Meyerson raises a problem of his own making...

But once you recognize homosexuality as a genetic reality, it does create a theological dilemma for the Mohlers among us, for it means that God is making people who, in the midst of what may otherwise be morally exemplary lives, have a special and inherent predisposition to sin. Mohler's response is that since Adam's fall, sin is the condition of all humankind. That sidesteps, however, the conundrum that a gay person may follow the same God-given instincts as a straight person -- let's assume fidelity and the desire for church sanctification in both cases -- and end up damned while the straight person ends up saved. Indeed, it means that a gay person's duty is to suppress his God-given instincts while a straight person's duty is to fulfill his.

Mr. Meyerson, (article entitled god and his gays)

I read with interest your piece on God and homosexuality. I cannot concur with your opinion though. Whether or not homosexuality is genetically based really has no bearing on whether or not it is a moral act in God’s eyes. Assuming, as I am sure many do, that heterosexuality is a genetic trait, does not change the fact that God laid down many specific rules on the proper expression of that act. Having a predisposition or desire to perform an act is not always excused even in our society. You would not take the position that a child molester who is attracted to children through a genetic trait should be able to act out. Nor would you likely accept genetic traits that attract one member of a family to another (neither of these examples is an attempt to make claims as to the relative societal impact these acts present, it simply serves to detail how genetic predisposition does not equal a moral act). A person who has a genetic flaw that leads to alcohol abuse would not be held less accountable for the death of someone in a drunken driving incident. God expects us to deny the flesh and temptations of this world, not succumb to every desire.

Your complaint would be that a homosexual cannot act out on their particular impulse while a heterosexual can find a moral, defined in the Christian sense as compliance with the rules laid out in the Bible, avenue for expression. This is a secular problem, not a Christian problem. As humans we all have natural desires and traits that are not in compliance with the rules laid down by God. What is hard for one person is easy for another. For a Christian there is really no ground for dispute or problems. There really is only acceptance or failure to accept the rules we have been given. Homosexuals are no more damned to your vision of hell than any other person who has not been saved as defined in the New Testament (which by the way does not involve Church sanctification) In making this claim you are projecting an improper understanding of scripture. A Christian can struggle with homosexuality as any other sinful impulse. Struggling against the flesh is to be expected in a Christian life. It is when someone makes the argument that what is defined as sin is not sin that one could begin to question whether that person is a true Christian.

With regards to whether it is fair or right for a Christian to try and have their belief system imposed on society, I would say that all segments of society try to impose their beliefs and values. A Christian does not lose that aspect of citizenship just because their belief system comes from a religion instead of ‘modern’ culture.

I would of course not expect your understanding of the Christian faith or that you would accept or believe in those rules that people of that faith understand to have come from God. I do think it proper to say that your failure to understand or believe in these items renders you in a poor position to detail any quandary that those in the faith may have. I appreciate your time.

Regards

A Source for Morality

Having given some thought to the issue of morality over the time I have read the Vox Popoli blog, I believe that a valid moral system can be constructed outside a religious system and without reliance on theistic grounds. This system could not possibly be a universal system of moral truth as it would be acceptable and perhaps desirable to change it over time. In effect this creates what I believe to be the truth: that there exists a universal system of moral truth that is based on absolute defined mandates of God and a series of complimentary, competing or supporting systems based on practical applications at a given point of time. To demonstrate how these systems look let us take an example of the universal moral truth of ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’. A complimentary moral system would be one in which it is moral to show respect for that which is classified as the spiritual or divine. A competing moral system would be openly hostile (that of the general atheist commentator) or at best indifferent to this concept at all. A supporting system would be the beliefs, traditions and human created rules that dictate in what way you show obedience with this moral command.

This of course begs the question as to why certain morality systems arise. I believe the answer falls into one of several options: it was a series of choices made by people who chose or came to live in a similar vicinity with the goal of easing or defining social interactions; it reflected the preferences or desires of a dominant figure that galvanized the culture or mindset of a particular group; it is an amalgam of traits from successful human endeavors that survive to be duplicated.

The problem with both positions of the morality debate as commonly framed at Vox Popoli is the reliance on the concept of rationality. Morality and moral systems need not be rationally based because humans are not rational creatures. At best, rationality is one of several competing forces that humans use to approach the world and make choices. It is not even in all cases the best source for approaching the world and making decisions. It also seeks to limit morality to a static matter rather than a dynamic force.

Morality need not also be eternally true to be valid. It can be true in practical terms for a period of time. That is why what is true and acceptable in one era is not in another. The morality changes as the focus of a people or culture changes. In past ages obedience and respect for the king was right as it served the moral notion of loyalty to king and country and the establishment of the nation state. In present times, even respect for a president is considered a potentially unreasonable expectation as prior morality has given way to the morality of limited expression rights. Slavery and colonialism were considered either morally good or neutral as they supported the economic systems of the time. Currently, they are more generally considered morally bad as the newer passion for the masses is a form of self-determination.

Morality need not be established by a creator God to be proven valuable. Economic theories are not credited to God and yet they exist. Economics come forth in the same way as other cultural expressions. They arise through formal and informal decisions agreed upon by enough of a culture to give the power of preponderance to the system. I find it interesting that those who believe in the nearly inerrant invisible hand of the market cannot give credence to a similar construct for the system of morality. I posit a system whereby thousands to millions of individual choices shape a whole moral system that an individual works in without understanding how every point was arrived at. While someone may choose to operate outside of this system, if they deviate significantly from the norm then they risk social sanction. It is only when whole groups migrate to a different moral sphere that the moral system is observably changed.

Relativism is also not a downfall of a transitory practical moral system. Human interactions are based on relativism: she is better looking than her; that car is cooler; this milk is worth more to me that these Federal Reserve Notes… These transitory practical moral systems frequently are expressed through political manifestations. A libertarian may accept the death of an elderly person who cannot afford his medication because the compulsion of another to pay for that medicine violates a moral prohibition against theft. A liberal will take the nearly exact opposite approach to this issue. The liberal will feel that preventing that death is a greater moral good. As it currently stands, this particular society is giving more credence to the second line of moral thinking.

How do you measure a relative moral system? It is obvious that you do not measure a universal moral system. We are told that under that system (assuming that of a saved Christian) that we are at best laying up treasures in heaven and that we can expect to be ill treated in this world. However, a relativistic transitory practical morality system is an indirectly measurable thing. Granted, this measurement might possibly only be made through the study of history. One can evaluate a moral systems contribution to a sustainable culture, unifying forces in a defined community, economic outcomes and in other general categories. In effect, what serves the best interest of the most people for the longest period of time.

Relativistic transitory practical morality is a system quite similar to economics but with more extended social implications. Established or modified by humans, it serves functions unique to a specific period of time or culture. In that type of system, success is the only judge necessary. While an atheist cannot argue universal morality, a Christian or member of another faith should realize that most atheists will not accept their arguments of universal morality as the Christian faith will be viewed as simply a competing relativistic transitory practical morality. Further most Christians should realize that many things they hold to are not universal tenants, but supporting morality tenants developed over time. For your average Christian, morality is based in terms of a) the Bible b) their church and c) what they personally believe. When arguing from point’s b and c you are engaging other moral sets from a relativistic approach.

This piece in no way implies that a libertine existence is acceptable or idea. It also does not put forth the erroneous belief that all moral systems are equal. Some ideas and beliefs bear out to be superior over others, just as certain economic theories so demonstrate. What we are likely to see is a continuous cycle of moral systems that rise and fall (sometimes aiding the rise and fall of their cultures) until the Author of universal morality has His final say.