A Common Morality Is Necessary For A Free Society
The successful creation and sustenance of a free society is contingent on the voluntary adoption of a common moral perspective among its citizens, apart from and above the State, which serves to curb the natural inclination of its citizens towards self-gratification and ego aggrandizement. Without this common moral perspective, citizens will exercise their liberty in such a way as to gratify themselves to the detriment of the common good. Eventually, the aggregate impact of these acts will create such harm that the public will conclude that the surrender of freedom is an acceptable price to escape the difficulty created by the unrestrained exercise of liberty.
This is not merely a speculative concern. In the aftermath of many of our past financial crises there have been outcries for more and stricter regulations because of the perception that the greed of certain individuals drove acts which damaged common economic interests. Today, for instance, I saw an article from the Daily Telegraph entitled “Lehman Drives Sword Into Laissez Faire.” Shifting our focus beyond our borders, we have seen many fledgling democracies destroyed when certain business or political interests acted in disregard to the common good, resulting in crises which in turn led to loss of freedoms as the public demanded more control over individual behavior.
The weaker the influence of a common moral perspective, the more tightly the State must hold the reins on its citizens’ behavior.
This principle was understood by our Founding Fathers. For example, George Washington made the following statement in his Farewell Address:
“It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government.”
The Founding Fathers could assume a common moral perspective in the Christian faith. Since that time, however, popular intellectual currents have weakened the influence of that faith, and thus its restraining influence.
Let the reader understand that this is not an argument for the adoption of the Christian faith (although, as a Christian, I am prepared to make that argument). Which moral perspective should be adopted (and it is conceivable that such a perspective not even be a religion in the strictest sense) is a matter separate from the present discussion. Rather, the point to be made is that the creation of a free society requires, as a condition for its success, the adoption of some common morality which is independent of the State.
The reader must further understand that the choice of moral perspective cannot be imposed by any movement or institution, if only for the practical reason that the act of imposition weakens the legitimacy of the moral perspective, and hence weakens its ability to influence behavior. Additionally, most citizens (including the author) would have a moral issue with the act of imposition as well.
Should, instead, the people refer the role of moral arbiter to the State, the State in effect chooses a national religion, albeit a religion without God, and thus the State violates the First Amendment to our Constitution.
Within the context of the American experiment, then, our challenge is to consider, as we regain our freedom, what the common moral perspective must be, independent of the compulsory agency of the State. Although we can debate which perspective we should choose, we cannot, based on the experience of history, doubt the necessity for a free society of choosing a viable moral fabric.