Mill's On Liberty Part III: Liberty and the Evils of Moral Relativism

            Beyond Mill’s three principles of civil liberty, which remain good general principles in a modern, pluralist democracy, but terrible universal principles, we get to Mill’s central vision of individual choice:

The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it.  Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

Once again, I can get behind Mill in general.  I believe it is desirable to have a society where people have the ability to determine and pursue their own ends.  But once again, I cannot uphold this principle as a universal value, for two reasons that are related to one another.  Society, as it stands, is not a social contract but a social covenant.  All morality is premised on acting in a manner that harms the individual but helps the social order.  For example, one is expected to tell the truth, even if telling the truth causes great harm to befall the individual.  Moreover, if lying or cheating becomes widespread, it dis-incentizes others from not lying or not cheating, creating the old “everyone is doing it” phenomenon.  Whether one considers adultery, theft, conscription, the use of violence, the fact is that individuals will have to forego an individual benefit in order to build a better, safer, more trusting society.  If individuals perceive their fellow citizens as immoral, citizens will behave immorally themselves.  If everyone gets to define their morality for themselves, and pursue their own version of morality, then individuals seeking to justify their lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, or the use of violence (for themselves) will define their actions as morally justified.  After all, morality imposes individual costs while promoting collective benefits.  If individuals get to draw the line, strategic individuals will draw the line in a way that entitles them to behave in a way which confers on them the benefits of morality and will impose the cost on their neighbors.  Likewise, their neighbors will similarly define their moral code in a way that benefits them at the expense of the others.  Soldiers want brothels, the wealthy want weak penalties for tax evasion, the poor want weak penalties for shoplifting, students want weak penalties for academic dishonesty.  Moreover, these people pursuing these radically different visions of morality will each perceive their neighbors as immoral.  And when people view other members of society as immoral, they then feel justified in behaving immorally toward their neighbors.  Mill’s viewpoint, if widely accepted, literally sets up a vicious circle, undermining social cohesion and morality broadly.  The problem with Mill’s vision of each individual defining morality for themselves is that it empowers free riders and promotes a general sense of moral anarchy and immorality.  Does it matter that a society embraces an ethos that will lead to widespread lying, cheating, stealing and sexual immorality?  We can see from the following link what happens to colonies of yeast with widespread cheating:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130430194259.htm

The point is that while cheating benefits individuals at the expense of other individuals, colonies of cheaters die off against colonies of non-cheaters.  A society in which everyone defines their own morality will be relatively speaking, more immoral, than one in which there is an agreed upon moral code based on existing tradition.  Moral relativism is a recipe for social disintegration and destruction.    

Morality can never be defined individually, it must be defined collectively, because it amounts to a system of rules, essentially a tax on private behavior, that all the individuals must follow or be punished.  Individuals behave morally because they fear being punished or subjected to social shame, and because they view other individuals as submitting to the same system of rules.  Unless a society has an existing system of moral rules (based in relatively non-negotiable customs) and unless it is considered justified for society to enforce those rules, the moral system which provides collective strength breaks down.  Moreover, where can the system come from, except custom?  If individuals are left to decide, they will choose to legitimate their own immoral conduct, and to regulate the immoral conduct of their neighbors.  Thus, although I support liberty, liberty can never exist in a healthy way unless it is directed toward actualizing a collective system of laws and morality.  A nation must define for itself a system of moral rules, as reflected in its laws, and individuals must be punished if they violate those rules, and more importantly, held to general social approbation for not following those rules.  Groups maintain these rules because they are protective of the welfare of the entire collectivity, and a decline in morals threatens the welfare of all.

There can be no doubt that societies have differences in their views of morals, or that societies can come to have new views on issues of morals, as the United States did with respect to slavery during the Nineteenth Century.  But at the same time, as the Biblical Prophets pointed out, immorality endangers the survival of the Nation, and morality cannot be a simple matter of individual preference.  Morality confers significant evolutionary survival value to a group, and morality can only be defined by the group, and based on historical customs, in order for a system of morality to be effective.