June 30, 2006 3:51 PM
by Weekend Edition
|
Other posts by Weekend Edition
|
Comments (17)
Earlier historians dealt almost exclusively with the deeds and exploits of kings and warriors, writes Ludwig von Mises. They paid little or no attention to the slowly working changes in social and economic conditions. They did not bother about the modifications of doctrines, creeds, and mentalities. Even such an unparalleled event as the expansion of Christianism was hardly mentioned by the historians of the first two centuries. About a hundred and score years ago a new approach to history was entered upon.
FULL ARTICLE
Comments (17)
I concur with virtually everything that Mises said in this fine article. But I decry the following “All men…want the same things in this world. They want to protect their own life and the lives of their kin against damage and they want to increase their material well-being…The Nazis embarked upon the way of conquest because their doctrines taught them that a victorious war is indispensable for their happiness.�
Mises seems to have no sense of the desire for barbarism (and worse) in the human heart or in history. Perhaps he would be utterly surprised at the way many Muslims behave, caring more to harm the infidel, than to help themselves. Yet this is not a slip on his part, but rather the consequences of a doctrine that there are no moral absolutes.
Mises writes in “Human Action� p. 720 “There is, however, no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust…The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible.� He goes on to deny a value basis for property as well as any absolute notion of justice.
I think that his amoral view of man is unnecessary for his economic theories and analyses. Mises wishes to focus on the Wertfrei aspects of his discipline, so there is no need for morality. Yet that does not require any denial that some people desire to harm others, more than to help themselves. Moreover, when it comes to economic policy, moral doctrines such as do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, are most consistent with optimizing economic performance.
So Mises is an admitted utilitarian, which is fine for the Wertfrei aspects of economics, but not for understanding the motives of man.
Published: July 1, 2006 8:38 AM
Allen,
I'm not convinced that Mises had an amoral view of man. In this article, he wrote "The Nazis embarked upon the way of conquest because their doctrines taught them that a victorious war is indispensable for their happiness." He recognized that men would commit real evil, but have a philosophy that justified it. It's hard for me to believe that people embrace evil, but they will justify evil acts through their doctrines and convince themselves that they are not evil acts. I think that may be what Mises is saying.
He doesn't consider his attitude utilitarian, either, since he wrote "It would not be more correct to style our point of view an utilitarian one. Utilitarianism has rejected all standards of a heteronomous moral law, which has to be accepted and obeyed regardless of the consequences arising therefrom. For the utilitarian point of view a deed is a crime because its results are detrimental to society and not because some people believe that they hear in their soul a mystical voice which calls it a crime. We do not talk about problems of ethics."
I think that Mises is trying to avoid getting entangled in questions of morality in order to investigate doctrines and particularly economics.
I don't know much about Mises's religious beliefs, but in one way he supports one of the most important foundations of Christianity: Individuals have a free will and are responsible for their actions. Mises and conservative Christians are the last people on the planet to believe that. Everyone else has suscribed to some form of determinism.
Anarchists should pay attention to this statement: "There is only one standard which we have to apply when dealing with doctrines. We have to ask whether their practical application will succeed in attaining those ends which people wish to attain." Anarchists claim that their system will lead to a more peaceful and just society. The debate over anarchism vs. statism should center around that, and not moral questions as anarchists insist.
Also, Mises wrote "We do not talk about problems of ethics." Yet his student, Rothbard, set out to create from scratch an entirely new system of ethics based on the absoluteness of the right to property. The arrogance necessary to attempt such a feat is unfathomable. Mises demonstrated the humility that formed an essential part of his great wisdom. I don't believe that Mises thought ethics unimportant, but that they belonged to another discipline.
Rothbard, by introducing his fabricated ethical system, violated Mises's standard for analyzing doctrines: Will they achieve the desired ends. While some anarchists discuss the efficacy of their doctrine, most are stuck with slandering their opponents as thieves and murderers, at least on this web site. The discussions of taxation should revolve around its efficiency toward achieving desired ends, not around its morality. Discussions about foreign policy should aim at the same goal, and not in tossing around accusations of murder, imperialism and theft. But Rothbard's fake ethical system has poisoned the debate that Mises started.
Published: July 1, 2006 10:12 AM
I myself got a gain from reading this article through seeing one of my own cherished opinions successfully refuted by von Mises: the Montesqieuian doctrine that geography is a determinant of history. Me noticing my error was a bit of a shock to me because I re-read, not read, that piece. I first read it about fifteen years ago.
What makes the social sciences so difficult is that it's the only science where the observer is of the same species as the observed - hence, the eternal temptation to the observer to substitute intellectualized vanity (whose base is species solidarity) for the search for apodictic truth. Introspection is, of course, not a sufficient method for social science, but it is a necessary one - if only to observe oneself for one's own biases. Since the ability to conduct a complete self-test is a skill rarely developed, it's no surprise that social science grows by bootstrapping, and includes pseudoprogress along with progress.
Published: July 1, 2006 10:53 AM
Roger M. is not convinced that Mises had an amoral view of man despite the quote that “There is, however, no such thing as a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust…The notion of right and wrong is a human device…�
OK, consider his statement that the Nazis fought war for their happiness. Did not their ‘happiness’ involve hatred, domination, and persecution? There were times toward the end of WWII, when killing victims impeded their military efforts, yet was continued even though there was no longer any chance of winning. If that does not constitute embracing evil, what does?
Actually, Roger M. writes “It's hard for *me* to believe that people embrace evil� so perhaps he shares Mises’ view that there cannot be evil within man. If so, what would he require for evidence to the contrary? Moreover, if evil acts are merely a misunderstanding of what will succeed, then they are honest mistakes, to be corrected by education. This doesn't explain the attitudes of those who refuse to recognize what is evident, such as holocaust deniers. Perhaps at issue is the meaning of ‘evil’? I submit that it is found in the motivations of man, and not in his acts.
Mises writes “For the utilitarian point of view a deed is a crime because its results are detrimental to society and not because some people believe that they hear in their soul a mystical voice which calls it a crime. We do not talk about problems of ethics…The only point which we have to emphasize is that people who do not apply the appropriate means will not attain the ends they wish to attain.� That is precisely what I understand by ‘utilitarian’ namely not recognizing the role of moral and immoral intentions. It is true that he wrote "It would not be more correct to style our point of view an utilitarian one.� I think he meant to say that ‘it would be more correct to call our view utilitarian’ because he goes on to justify that view.
I would add that on page 175 of Human Action, Mises writes “the teachings of utilitarian philosophy and classical economics have nothing at all to do with the doctrine of natural right. With them the only point that matters is social utility. They recommended popular government, private property, tolerance and freedom not because they are natural and just, but because they are beneficial….The Utilitarians do not combat arbitrary government and privileges because they are against natural law but because they are detrimental to prosperity.�
I think that Mises’ view was captured by the hypothetical question “If the harsh methods of socialism resulted in economic gain, would you be in favor of it?� I am told that his response was “But it doesn’t result in economic gain.�
Yes, I concur that “Individuals have a free will and are responsible for their actions.� Unfortunately all that Mises holds them responsible for are not doing what it takes to achieve their goals. I grant that the maker of a rifle is only concerned that its bullet hits the intended target. But this in no way denies the moral differentiation of murdering an innocent or killing in self defense.
Mises writes "There is only one standard which we have to apply when dealing with doctrines. We have to ask whether their practical application will succeed in attaining those ends which people wish to attain." So if Muslims employ WMD to intimidate and terrorize the infidels, and end up as martyrs, their doctrine is fine if it succeeds. This might be great consolation to them. Personally, I prefer the simple doctrine “Thou shalt not kill.� Similarly, I would decry stealing from one man to help another, even if it had a beneficial effect (as measured by utilitarian standards).
Published: July 1, 2006 2:24 PM
When I read Roger's post, above, when I read "It's hard for me to believe that people embrace evil, but they will justify evil acts through their doctrines and convince themselves that they are not evil acts." my immediate response was "just witness Roger M's embrace of the state". Then I read further, and found it was Roger saying it! (Well, I thought it was funny)
Published: July 1, 2006 9:29 PM
Peter,
Yes, I embrace the state, just as Mises did. And like Mises, I think the state needs to be pruned back until it does nothing more than provide protection from foreign invaders and protect private property rights. Obviously, you're a religious devotee of Rothbard's so-called ethical system, which forces you to chant the mantra that the state is evil. As you demonstrate, Rothbard's anarchism destroys one's ability to discern good from evil.
Published: July 3, 2006 8:46 AM
Roger writes that "like Mises, I think the state needs to be pruned back until it does nothing more than provide protection from foreign invaders and protect private property rights." I concur. Yet when he claims that "Rothbard's anarchism destroys one's ability to discern good from evil" Roger is affirming the very moral perspective that Mises decries.
Published: July 3, 2006 9:27 AM
Allen, You may be right. I'll have to study it more.
Published: July 3, 2006 10:30 AM
Thanks Roger. I have great respect for someone who is willing to reexamine his position.
Published: July 3, 2006 4:19 PM
I don't find anything fraudulent about Rothbard's support for the ethical doctrine of libertarianism. At no point has Rothbard ever taken science out of it's wertfreit role. Just because one can create, through reason alone, an ethical doctrine which doesn't contradict itself doesn't make it the one and only doctrine which can ever be supported.
Rothbard's critique of utilitarianism is the same critique that von Mises would use against other doctrines: it's ultimately self-defeating.
(That being said, von Mises doesn't seem to be saying he is a utilitarian, and uses the term more to mean consequentialist in this context)
Published: July 3, 2006 7:02 PM
Anarchos writes that "von Mises doesn't seem to be saying he is a utilitarian, and uses the term more to mean consequentialist in this context".
There is a subtle difference in that "consequentialist" is somewhat broader than the particular consequence of utility. However, these are essentially the same in the avoidance of any absolute or moral principle. Mises' sought consequence is whatever people desire, as opposed to what ought to be. This, for example, is in direct opposition to the view of Objectivism, or of any religion.
Published: July 4, 2006 6:32 AM
Mises wrote about economics, and was careful to keep it "Wertfrei", but don't infer that he had no non-utilitarian values of his own.
Published: July 4, 2006 9:59 PM
Well Mises could (and did) defend his position about the National Socialists by saying that most of their voters supported them because they thought their living standards would go up - rather than just for the pleasure of killing.
Although (of course) a utilitarian would not make a distiction between the pleasure of killing and the pleasure of being able to pay the rent (this is one of the many things wrong with Jeremy Bentham's ideas).
As for fanatical Muslims - the untilitarian would have no problem at all explaining them. They both gain pleasure by killing people they consider enemies of God and they hope for reward in an afterlife.
I did not know the quote where Mises attacks utilitarianism. Normally Mises says nice things about untilitarianism, but I agree that the docrtrine does not really suit him.
Mises was a passionate man determined to do the right thing (at whatever cost to himself) so trying to hold to the doctrine that there is no "right thing" (or that it is just a matter of pleasure-pain calculation as if, for example, whether a gang rape is wrong is to be determined by comparing the pain of the victim to the pleasure of the rapists to see which is greater) does not really fit.
As for agency, the abilty to choose (as opposed to both determinism and randomness)- to be fair there are quite a lot of non Christians who suppport that.
However, I agree that the trick of David Hume (repeated by Hayek and so many others) of claiming that determinism is somehow "compatible" (or even dependent on) determinism (in the sense that we have no capacity to CHOOSE to do other than we do - because prior events form our characters or whatever)with moral responsibilty is bullshit (I make no apology for the use of the word).
Such bullshit is both false and harmfull. A person is an agent, a subject not just an object - a being with the capacity to choose one course of action rather than an another.
A denial of agency (free will) is really the denial of the existance of intelligent beings (a denial of the "I"), whether such a denial is made in the name of philosophy or of natual science there is still the question of "who is making the denial?"
Someone who denies his own existance as an agent (who denies that he could write, speak or otherwise act differently than he does) is claiming to be a "something" not a "someone" (it is the denial of the very existance of a being).
If it is true that humans are not agents (that they are a life form that lacks free will) then killing humans would have no more moral importance than crushing ants.
Published: July 5, 2006 6:51 AM
Obviously, you're a religious devotee of Rothbard's so-called ethical system, which forces you to chant the mantra that the state is evil.
The state is evil.
As you, too, would recognise, if you'd open your eyes.
OK, for a Christian perspective, have you read this?
Published: July 5, 2006 7:06 AM
Peter says one should not infer that Mises “had no non-utilitarian values�. I did not infer this (from his sound doctrine that economics was Wertfrei) but quoted a number of his statements.
I agree with Paul Marks that Mises would do the right thing in his personal life, whatever the cost to himself. (It is his doctrine that man is guided solely by his desires that is being questioned.) I further agree with Paul's affirmation of free will.
Paul correctly notes that many of the National Socialists were seeking a higher standard of living. That however does not contradict the motive to do harm. Note that the same Muslims who relish terror are able to seek and fight for material gain. One can describe this as gaining pleasure, yet that is consistent with evil intent, as when a sadist engages in torture. Thus it is tautological to claim that an evil doer seeks pleasure, for why would he engage in evil if he didn’t find it to his liking.
Mises advocates the doctrine that what is sought in economic policy is to give people what they want. As such, he follows the same Social Democratic perspective that governs our country in particular, and the West in general. I aver that this is amoral. Yet suppose some say that whatever is sought gives pleasure, so there is no difference between moral, amoral, or immoral desires, how do we answer?
I submit that man is a hybrid, comprised of passions (or animal drives) and reason (or aspirations). Thus he continually faces the choice of whether to follow his passions or his reason. (This view was well presented in “Pinnochio� who would choose between doing right or wrong.) *It is that choice that constitutes morality or immorality.* When we speak of 'pleasure', we ordinarily mean the gratification that animals obtain, when they find power, wealth, or status; when we speak of 'spiritual reward', we ordinarily mean an inner satisfaction, that only humans possess.
Does anyone deny that at the dawn of civilization (say 10,000 years ago) man was guided strictly by passions, while in ensuing millennia, he was increasingly guided by his aspirations. Today, perhaps as many as 10% of our decisions (in the civilized world) are guided by reason, and if we follow the reasoning of the contributors to this blog our veneer of civilization might reach 15%.
Published: July 5, 2006 8:25 AM
Peter, Yes, I have read Lipscomb's articles. He does a hatchet job on the principles of hermeneutics. Contrary to what most people think, you can't make the Bible or the Constitution mean whatever you want it to mean, not if you want to be honest. Lipscomb violates a lot of principles of hermeneutics and therefore arrives at a dishonest interpretation. The Bible clearly sanctions government in many passages. Paul even called the agents of the government of Rome "ministers of God" because of their role in suppressing evil.
The Bible and natural law theory are the most sound sources of moral thinking that exist and are the foundation of Western civilization and freedom. Both agree that the state is a good thing, although people in state positions can act in evil ways. Rothbard's attempt at overthrowing these two great traditions in favor of his arbitrary system of ethics was a major mistake on his part, although he is brilliant at economics. I call his system arbitrary because he starts his syllogisms with property, as though it were an obvious starting point and absolute. But why start with property? Why not begin with the right to survival, as the natural law theorists did? Or with God? Or with cows, as some Hindus do? Rothbard's starting point was arbitrarily based on property and he arbitrarily exclused the consideration of any other right, such as the right to survival.
When most people use the words "moral" and "evil", they're thinking of the use of those terms in the traditional Christian and natural law definitions. When Rothbard chose to adopt those terms in his ethical system, he became dishonest because he's using words with his own private definition of them. In other words, things are moral and evil in the sense that they follow the conclusions of his syllogisms. But that's not what most people mean by "moral" and "evil." They mean that things either follow or oppose the teachings of the Bible, or the creation of God.
I can't stop you from calling the state evil, since Rothbard has brainwashed you. Just keep in mind that you're being dishonest when you do so.
Published: July 5, 2006 8:47 AM
Anyone with moral sensibilities can call something 'evil'. Calling the state evil doesn't have to be a scientific conclusion to be valid.
However, I don't see how anyone with any moral sensibilities can ultimately come to any other conclusion, if he were consistent in his thought. You don't have to start with or have a fixation on property. Take Ghandi, for example.
Published: July 5, 2006 6:51 PM