What makes government different?

[fakename]

That is, why does it seem that different moral rules apply to government officials and not to anyone else.

Example: only the official can intend a person’s death for the common good, only an official can declare a war, etc.

It just sees odd because I don’t know why these specific officers have different moral capacities than anyone else. Thoughts?

 

[fakename]

bump

 

[lemondiesel]

Their duty is to preserve the Commonwealth. We as citizens give up many of our Rights when we elect officials, because we basically say, “I do not want to or have time to participate in government, but I hereby entrust my Rights of governing to this select person.”

Not to say government officials don’t become corrupt, but the morals of government must ensure the protection of citizens, which is what government is founded upon.

 

[TimothyH]

The book of Wisdom tells us that those who hold positions of authority will be held to a higher standard and will receive a harsher judgement.

*Hear, therefore, kings, and understand; learn, you magistrates of the earth’s expanse! Hearken, you who are in power over the multitude and lord it over throngs of peoples! Because authority was given you by the LORD and sovereignty by the Most High, who shall probe your works and scrutinize your counsels! Because, though you were ministers of his kingdom, you judged not rightly, and did not keep the law, nor walk according to the will of God, Terribly and swiftly shall he come against you, because judgment is stern for the exalted - For the lowly may be pardoned out of mercy but the mighty shall be mightily put to the test. (Wisdom 6:1-6)*While some have the authority to declare war and to sentance crimminals to death, they will be held strictly accountable for doing so in accordance with God’s will. Jesus confirms this…

*Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more. (Luke 12:48)*But Paul tells us why God has placed people in authority.

*Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (Romans 13:1-6)*Those in authority have been placed there as ministers and servants of God, to do good to the good but to inflict wrath on those who do evil.

Unfortunately, some in position of authority inflict wrath on those who do good and vis versa.

-Tim-

 

[tonyrey]

In a truly democratic society one official is not entitled to order a person’s death for the common good or declare war unless that order is based on a legal decision.

 

[fakename]

I suppose a better question would be, how does the natural desire of man to have an authority, translate into “only a civil official can do such and such”? I know one reason seems to be that the public official has the ability to know what parts should go and what should stay just as a doctor knows when to amputate or not. The problem with this is that it just pushes my question further backwards -how is it that only public officials know? They don’t seem to be any different from private people?

 

[fakename]

Or perhaps the official has to be a philosopher king -that’s why it is presumed that he alone can dispose of the whole and to see the relation between part and whole.

I don’t think that officials are given power to know the correct way to dispose of the community simply by being servants of God -that is, that being an official makes you a servant of God and so entitled to superior knowledge.

I think that officials are servants of God if and only if they are able to know how to dispose of the community. So that means if someone doesn’t dispose of his duties correctly, then he cannot be a servant of God and as such he really isn’t an official (though he holds the title “president”). So I guess I’m concluding that my original question was flawed -an official is not just a member of a parliament, bureaucracy, or a president but is either of these and a just official/president/etc.

 

[tonyrey]

Or perhaps the official has to be a philosopher king -that’s why it is presumed that he alone can dispose of the whole and to see the relation between part and whole.

I don’t think that officials are given power to know the correct way to dispose of the community simply by being servants of God -that is, that being an official makes you a servant of God and so entitled to superior knowledge.

I think that officials are servants of God if and only if they are able to know how to dispose of the community. So that means if someone doesn’t dispose of his duties correctly, then he cannot be a servant of God and as such he really isn’t an official (though he holds the title “president”). So I guess I’m concluding that my original question was flawed -an official is not just a member of a parliament, bureaucracy, or a president but is either of these and a just official/president/etc.

“just” is the key word! But modern philosophers as a whole do not necessarily see the relation of the parts to the whole!

 

[mosher]

I suppose a better question would be, how does the natural desire of man to have an authority, translate into “only a civil official can do such and such”? I know one reason seems to be that the public official has the ability to know what parts should go and what should stay just as a doctor knows when to amputate or not. The problem with this is that it just pushes my question further backwards -how is it that only public officials know? They don’t seem to be any different from private people?

A response to this question will differ, of course, based upon the philosophical presuppositions of the person. I am inclined to agree with the account of the structure of the political body provided by Aristotle and modified by Aquinas.

I this view the State is brought into existence by the common assent of its most basic unit. This is a common enough descriptive. For the modern the basic unit is the individual. However, for Aristotle and Aquinas the most fundamental and basic unit of the State is the family. Thus, the State exists to protect the human family and allow it to flourish. Because the basic unit is the family the State has an analogous structure to the idealized family. Hence each state would have a Paterfamilias. In the State we would call this the Head of State (Sovereign, President, Prime Minister, etc.). This is the person who has the responsibility to care for the whole just like the Paterfamilias has a responsibility to care for his household. Therefore, in order exercise his natural responsibilities he must have the tools at hand to fulfill this obligation. From this follows the answer to your question.

 

[fakename]

What does one mean by proper tools? I mean to say, that whether or not a tool is proper is something that has to be proved and can’t just be assumed on the condition that there is a ruler, and second the propriety of wielding the tool is not guaranteed so this propriety can’t be assumed on the condition of a ruler. Unless Ruler is only he that can use proper tools and proper tools themselves imply a ruler.

 

[mosher]

What does one mean by proper tools? I mean to say, that whether or not a tool is proper is something that has to be proved and can’t just be assumed on the condition that there is a ruler, and second the propriety of wielding the tool is not guaranteed so this propriety can’t be assumed on the condition of a ruler. Unless Ruler is only he that can use proper tools and proper tools themselves imply a ruler.

Again, another analogy might help. A man can call himself a blacksmith all day long. He can set up a shop and build a fire. But if he doesn’t have bellows, an anvil, tongs and at least one hammer then he isn’t really a blacksmith. He also has to know his craft or else he isn’t really a blacksmith. Now, a ruler would need to have those things at his disposal that help serve the needs of the human family. The most basic things that a ruler must provide are protection (internally and externally) and education. From these two things all else follow. Thus, the ruler needs to have the ability to raise a policing force and a defensive force and some type of educational system. So, in some sense your last statement is true. Just like a blacksmith isn’t a blacksmith unless he has everything he needs to practice his trade so too the ruler. If he cannot do those things that are proper to his trade then he is not really the ruler.

 

[GEddie]

A civil society is useful in sustaining human wellbeing. This goes back to our beginnings on the savannahs of Africa when they first gathered together to fend off the wild beasts; and, indeed, any kind of human life beyond that level requires a well-established societal rubric.

But once there is a civil society, certain persons have to be entrusted with making decisions for it. It cannot simply be left to a consensus by everybody, since owing to conflicting self-interests, not all will agree except on the most trivial matters.

So there will always be some who are awarded powers unshared by everybody else. And part of the political challenge of recent times has been to assure that, for everybody’s well-being, such powers remain limited.

God bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[mosher]

A civil society is useful in sustaining human wellbeing. This goes back to our beginnings on the savannahs of Africa when they first gathered together to fend off the wild beasts; and, indeed, any kind of human life beyond that level requires a well-established societal rubric.

But once there is a civil society, certain persons have to be entrusted with making decisions for it. It cannot simply be left to a consensus by everybody, since owing to conflicting self-interests, not all will agree except on the most trivial matters.

So there will always be some who are awarded powers unshared by everybody else. And part of the political challenge of recent times has been to assure that, for everybody’s well-being, such powers remain limited.

God bless and ICXC NIKA.

This is a very Hobbesian view. It is also hyper individualistic. I don’t think it is possible to adequately justify the existence of a state if the basic unite of the state is the individual.

 

[GEddie]

This is a very Hobbesian view. It is also hyper individualistic. I don’t think it is possible to adequately justify the existence of a state if the basic unite of the state is the individual.

OK, what to you justifies the State? And what is its basic unit?

It’s obvious to me that individuals are the basic unit in a state. It is individuals that perform civic functions. It is individuals that are called to account to the laws of the state.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

A civil society is useful in sustaining human wellbeing. This goes back to our beginnings on the savannahs of Africa when they first gathered together to fend off the wild beasts; and, indeed, any kind of human life beyond that level requires a well-established societal rubric.

But once there is a civil society, certain persons have to be entrusted with making decisions for it. It cannot simply be left to a consensus by everybody, since owing to conflicting self-interests, not all will agree except on the most trivial matters.

So there will always be some who are awarded powers unshared by everybody else. And part of the political challenge of recent times has been to assure that, for everybody’s well-being, such powers remain limited.

God bless and ICXC NIKA.

Indeed. The problem of democracy is that the majority are not always right and tend to neglect the interests of minorities. That is why basic human rights have to be safeguarded in a constitution.

Societies are as important as individuals because we are social beings who need others. The only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is the fact that God is not an isolated Person but a Community! No secular ideology can explain why these principles are objective facts rather than merely human conventions…

 

[John21652]

That is, why does it seem that different moral rules apply to government officials and not to anyone else.

Example: only the official can intend a person’s death for the common good, only an official can declare a war, etc.

It just sees odd because I don’t know why these specific officers have different moral capacities than anyone else. Thoughts?

I take it as a given we are talking about a democratic society? I don’t think officials have different moral capacities. It is that different officials have different moral roles to play. Officials have different moral roles to play, that is, they make moral judgements on different aspects of civil society. In most cases, the moral judgement is supposedly arrived at after a certain process takes place. That process should include a moral dimension. Of course, it all depends on what laws are being invoked and on the content of the law. Basically, different people are given a different role to play as part of a democracy’s seperation of powers. The power to make a moral deliberation is vested in the official by the people. It would be akin to anarchy if the general population was allowed to make moral deliberations on executions and war!

 

[fakename]

I take it as a given we are talking about a democratic society? I don’t think officials have different moral capacities. It is that different officials have different moral roles to play. Officials have different moral roles to play, that is, they make moral judgements on different aspects of civil society. In most cases, the moral judgement is supposedly arrived at after a certain process takes place. That process should include a moral dimension. Of course, it all depends on what laws are being invoked and on the content of the law. Basically, different people are given a different role to play as part of a democracy’s seperation of powers. The power to make a moral deliberation is vested in the official by the people. It would be akin to anarchy if the general population was allowed to make moral deliberations on executions and war!

I suppose I should now ask a new question: how is it that the officials of a community have attained to a deliberation correct enough to be alone entrusted with execution, etc.? It seems to me that deciding who is breaking the common good is obvious and open to everyone (such that private citizens can kill in defense of the common good, and make decisions on war) else it would impossible for people to know who is a tyrant and who is not, so overthrowing a tyrant or tyrannical law would be impossible but that’s a contradiction. Also, it seems impossible that they receive their abilities from simply becoming officials since if that were the case, then all forms of government would have good officials and not some government would have bad ones -which contradicts experience of bad officials.

 

[mosher]

OK, what to you justifies the State? And what is its basic unit?

It’s obvious to me that individuals are the basic unit in a state. It is individuals that perform civic functions. It is individuals that are called to account to the laws of the state.

ICXC NIKA

The traditional position (and that of the Church for that matter) is that the basic unit of the State is the human family – not the individuals that constitute the numerous families in that State. This is why the State’s primary purpose for existing is its promoting of the flourishing of the human family. This is what I said in a previous post. I would be happy to justify this claim if needed.

Your view is definitely the traditional liberal (I don’t mean political liberal) postion born out of the so-called enlightenment. I think that this is, for many people, the dominant view of the State in contemporary Western Society. This is because this is what we are all taught in our schools. I also think that this is why people have a hard time understanding the reasoned arguments against such things as “gay marriage” and licit use of the death penalty all the way down to the immorality of contraceptives. The ramifications of a State being constituted by its individuals are quite dramatic and troubling.

 

[mosher]

I suppose I should now ask a new question: how is it that the officials of a community have attained to a deliberation correct enough to be alone entrusted with execution, etc.? It seems to me that deciding who is breaking the common good is obvious and open to everyone (such that private citizens can kill in defense of the common good, and make decisions on war) else it would impossible for people to know who is a tyrant and who is not, so overthrowing a tyrant or tyrannical law would be impossible but that’s a contradiction. Also, it seems impossible that they receive their abilities from simply becoming officials since if that were the case, then all forms of government would have good officials and not some government would have bad ones -which contradicts experience of bad officials.

Nothing. That is why it is so important to exercise civic virtues. Living in a society that elects rulers it is a grave responsibility to engage the process in order to elect wise rulers.

The morality of rising up against ones ruler is a complicated and controversial. It is debated among well thinking people who come to different conclusions. I tend to side myself with the position that when a ruler ceases to act for the common good he ceases to be a legitimate ruler and the body polotic has the obligation to replace him through just means. Just because a private citizen doesn’t have the right to execute someone doesn’t mean that the private citizen can’t judge whether the act to do so by the ruler is a just act.

 

[GEddie]

I suppose I should now ask a new question: how is it that the officials of a community have attained to a deliberation correct enough to be alone entrusted with execution, etc.? It seems to me that deciding who is breaking the common good is obvious and open to everyone (such that private citizens can kill in defense of the common good, and make decisions on war) else it would impossible for people to know who is a tyrant and who is not, so overthrowing a tyrant or tyrannical law would be impossible but that’s a contradiction. Also, it seems impossible that they receive their abilities from simply becoming officials since if that were the case, then all forms of government would have good officials and not some government would have bad ones -which contradicts experience of bad officials.

The “social contract” that is implicitly agreed to when you move into a society, or are born there and do not leave, implicitly “assumes” the competence of its ruling officials to determine issues of public wellbeing. If this were not the case, there could be no civil society.

In historic times, this trust was placed in those who were “born to rule”, and you had kingdoms and nobilities. Most of those which remain are societal souvenirs, as in England, etc.

Now, politicians earn that trust, in an increasing number of places, by going through an election contest.

The system can fail, as does everything else that is human, including our own bodies. The advantage of a democratic system is that correction is only as far as the next election season; while in the older birth-based systems, the people had no recourse but armed revolution.

Better rancourous sloganeering than rolling human heads.

ICXC NIKA