a balanced life

Ethics represents an ongoing attempt to define what is right and what is wrong, politics represents an ongoing attempts to define a method for governance. Both have personal and social aspects, one forms input to the other. These definitions are certainly subject to debate but can be used to frame a proposal which may help us answer the following question.

Can we gain some guidance for our ethical and political lives?

Many people 'subcontract' these issues to their priest, rabbi or imam. Other people answer these questions through adopting a stance on the 'left-right' spectrum, (see previous article - 'left and right'). Both approaches are widely used, abused and problematic.

Is there some mechanism we could adopt that might help us form a coherent ethical and political approach?

When we consider rights should we not also consider the corresponding duties. As a society each time we adopt some new personal or social right we could, by definition, adopt a corresponding duty. If we advocated the removal of a right then that would also mean removal of a corresponding duty. I think a few examples are warranted to illustrate the point.

We have a right to vote but currently we have no socially enforced duty to vote. This has led to a low level of engagement in the democratic process in western countries and yet each year we commemorate those who died for this right. Countries like Australia, Belgium, and Luxembourg have mandatory voting, they recognize the integrative nature of rights and duties. The suggestion here is that if a person does not perform the duty they lose the right.

Let's take a look at another more controversial example. The right to marry might bring with it the duty to be faithful to your partner. So if you were unfaithful would you lose your right to be married? Yes! But isn't this just fascism? You're telling people what they can and can't do! This approach simply asks people to fulfill their commitments, if they do not then the integrity of the original agreement is breached by their actions.

Exploring this further we can see how this could change marriage and the role and regard it has in our society. People will continue to be unfaithful but the marriage is by definition dissolved, so the consequence for the action is obvious, immediate and possibly expensive. If both parties wanted to continue in their marital relationship then the commitment would need to be renewed (we already have people renewing their vows). By changing the nature of marriage and the consequences of breaching it we may begin to change behaviour; we may have people entering into with more caution and exiting from it more deliberately. A minority of people may want an 'open marriage' and that too could be accommodated by this principle. Duties in this case would not include faithfulness, indeed a duty may be an expectation of plurality from both consenting parties. You can see this is radical (in so far as it requires a new order) and yet it is conservative (in so far as it requires a fulfillment of duty).

So in a nutshell the proposal is this, the granting of rights becomes inextricably linked with the acceptance of duties. You cannot have one without the other. I see this as a seesaw (teeter-totter) which must be kept in balance for an evolved ethical or political life. A Canadian friend of mine suggested that the fulcrum of the seesaw around which the rights and duties pivot perhaps is the decision to make a contribution to society. If you chose to contribute to society then you enter into an acceptance of the rights and duties. This idea cuts across the old 'left-right' debate and will make many people feel uncomfortable, discomfort is good it shows growth.

Might this approach provide some guidance for our ethical and political lives? Try it on with some current political or ethical issues you have and see if it fits.

For more information ...
left and right