Category | Op Ed

Life, liberty and lipitor: A moral manifesto

Published on February 2, 2010 by Joe Roesch

“The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin.”

These words are found in “Industrial Society and Its Future,” written by Theodore Kaczynski, who is perhaps best known as the infamous “Unabomber.” Now, before you write me off as a lunatic quoting murderous eco-terrorists, consider what these particular thoughts from a man who was the youngest professor ever at the University of California at Berkeley may actually mean. While it does indicate this columnist is not above petty, attention-grabbing tactics such as sensationalism, it also emphasizes that few things so effectively connote the gravity of an issue like irony. It is no less than ironic that I think Kaczynski is exactly correct when he concludes that society is at best schizophrenic, and at worst comatose, when confronted with the matter of morality.

Kaczynski’s own personal philosophies - not to mention actions - aside, this is the point where his attribution will end. Kaczynski believed modern technology in the wake of the Industrial Revolution has done and continues to do more harm than good and actually paralyzes human choice and freedom, rather than proliferating it. This columnist, however, would disagree. Few would argue that the last two centuries have given America and the world more hope to improve the human condition than the last two millennia ever did.

And therein lies the problem: In a country so wealthy and so full of luxury, many consider it only appropriate and even moral to take the necessities and make them “rights.” From the left calling for living wages and homeownership and the right calling for religious and social orthodoxy, the average American citizen is now being asked and even bullied into signing on the dotted line without being allowed to read and much less understand, the fine print. From preserving marriage to reinventing health care, the individual is given only false alternatives. What does it matter who marries? It would seem infidelity and divorce are greater enemies to marriage than any social minorities. Why should some have to pay for others’ health care, regardless of the insurance structure? Social Security should rectify the insolvencies already evident in the present system, as well as any future nationalization.

The systemic problem, and implicit solution, is an immoral approach to rights as they are viewed today. To legislate, establish or champion anything that clearly requires others’ effort to produce or a service is a violation of what makes something a right. Credit and loan regulations and net neutrality advocacy all violate these principles, even while masquerading as protection and fairness, even justice. What is certainly nothing new but must still be clearly understood is that there are good choices and convenient choices, and it is the individual’s responsibility to see where that real alternative lies. Perhaps the best determinant of true morality is asking yourself whether you are achieving good or simply assuaging guilt.

If I have a right to health care, that means I have a right to the doctor’s in education, his ability as a skilled laborer, his energy as a human being. Regardless of one’s feelings toward how lucrative a profession or enterprise may be, a need for its use is not a claim on its use.

Legislating such mandatory service is tantamount to barging into a medical practice and demanding to be treated by virtue of one’s mere existence, the only difference being whether a law exists to justify the claimant. The moral action is taken when one gives a dollar to charity or invests a dollar by sound speculation; for that dollar to be taken, even in the name of charity or sound speculation, is to justify theft and redistribution in the name of those virtues, which is perhaps a worse vice than parsimony or hedonism.

Joe Roesch is completing a degree in political science while preparing for law school, and can be found every Tuesday at 11 a.m. hosting The Live Wire Show @ ksuradio.com. He is all bark and no bite.