A modest Question

In my studies at Clemson University I have encountered many different thoughts, opinions, belief systems, but recently I have had one particular life view thrown in my face at various times as the end all correct answer to life and everything. This view is Libertarianism, or more appropriately some form of Objectivist/Libertarian hodge podge that has individuals quoting Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, and Ron Paul as if they were an omnipotent metaphysical beings gift to humanity. But while this view may or may not have merit in its claim, the thing I find troubling is the lack of moral foundation that it brings into the argument against other political and belief structures. In my experience, when I ask libertarians to defend the basis of Justice and Natural Law, a rigorous defense of these foundational ideological premises is never offered. This essay is intended to both put these Ideas in question, and invite well argued answers from those who would defend them.

An underlying tenet of libertarian belief structures is the belief in a natural law following human actions. Whether it comes in the form of free market economic relationships or in terms of natural moral law, libertarians seem to trust that at the core of the human condition, some form of moral and natural law exists. However, the troubling thing for me is that this law is never defended. The most common defense of natural law comes from God, but many libertarians on campus reject this claim so this goes out the door. Absent god, where does this claim come from? Yes, I agree that there are laws of motion and physical and chemical rules of the physical world, but where do these laws on human morality and relationships exist? John Gray, the British philosopher and social thinker, argues that in fact these laws governing social relationships and morality and nothing more than the work of human labor. And absent a notion of God, secular humanists in this case rely on a magical mystical thing called Reason, which is tends to function as a catch phrase, while failing to provide a transcendent moral foundation. Now, whether Gray is correct in this analysis can be argued, but the larger point he makes is valid. Where does this reason, this natural law come from? Do we have a magical dust inside ourselves as humans that compels us to correct moral decisions? Or rather is it that humans together through their labor have decided that certain moral rules and decisions are the best for them and operate as such? Maybe the moral law to not kill, steal, or harm is in fact just a decision that humans have made that makes sense to them and thus decide it is a moral law and not a natural law instead. So, Libertarians, I ask you, where do your natural laws exist?

Secondly, the issue of moral luck comes into play. Libertarians seem to want to claim that the hard work that any individual does is the process of his labor and his labor alone so therefore what he earns and gains is justly his. And this argument seems to be valid and make sense. Where I am troubled is the seemingly lack of consideration for the idea of Moral Luck. This idea that was first discussed by Bernard Williams and expounded upon by Thomas Nagel essentially argues that we have no control over the parents we are born to, how we are raised, what schools we attend as a child, what decisions are made for us, and many other things. Because of this, individuals start their lives on vastly different playing fields. Noting this, how then does the libertarian justify the claim that what is earned is fairly theirs because they are the ones who earned it? Can one easily deny that if one were to switch circumstances with a person that each person's life outcome would be greatly affected by the switched environments? Making the claim that what I labor for is therefore mine is a good enough claim if the premise is that we all had same opportunity, but if there is no opportunity is it the same? Now, I agree that ability and hard work should be rewarded, but this economic crisis has shown that people with neither were being rewarded and still are just because of the moral luck that came of them with their situation they were born into. Would it not make more sense to try to even the playing field to start with to reward hard work instead of luck? Libertarians, I urge you to ask, if I was born in the slums of India, would I even have a slim chance to get a college education?

These two issues of natural rights and moral luck are two that are glazed over too quickly by the libertarians on campus today and I urge that a dialogue be started to start questioning and understanding these views and really testing their validity.