Two Halves of Independence
by Joseph Rowlands
In Objectivist discussion of independence, the focus has generally been on the virtue of thinking for yourself. Independent judgment is viewed as the primary component of the virtue. You need to use your own best judgment when it comes to determining your values, considering facts, or deciding how to act. This is in contrast to people who follow the herd and accept whatever values society tells them to, substituting the judgments of others for their own. The emphasis is on the thinking instead of the acting.
The more conventional view of independence is about severing your need to rely on other people so you can act on your own judgment. Financial independence is a big one, allowing you to purchase goods or services without the need for permission by someone else. But there are many kinds of independence. Being able to drive your own car is another form of independence allowing greater mobility again without the need to rely on others. There are countless ways we can make ourselves less dependent on others. The emphasis in the conventional view is on the ability to take action, instead of the process of thinking for yourself.
These two views of independence, while appearing slightly different with one focusing on the thinking and the other focusing on the action, are really two aspects of the same virtue. Both are required for real independence. To see this, you have to see the problem with just focusing on independent judgment.
Imagine a person who does think for himself, refuses to let other people get in the way of his grasp of reality, and is in every other way an independent thinker. Now what happens if he's completely financially dependent on another person, for instance his mother? Does the fact that he thinks for himself and makes his own value judgments mean anything when he's forced to get his mother's approval for anything and everything? Is he dealing directly with reality when he has to ask an intermediary for permission? Does the virtue of independence, practiced merely as independent thinking, benefit his life?
This limited view of independence strikes me as an instance of the mind-body dichotomy. It upholds the virtue of proper thinking, but doesn't bother with whether that thinking can be put into practice. The whole point of virtues is to integrate mind and body, though. A virtue is the application of a moral principle to your actions. It combines rationality with productivity. One without the other is worthless.
To see this more clearly we can look at why a violation of someone's rights is wrong. Not trying to give an exhaustive answer, one big reason is that it invalidates the mind of the victim. It prevents him from acting on his own best judgment, invalidating his ability to live his life. Force and mind are opposites, after all. The victim's mind is invalidated through the use of force. It doesn't matter that he is still able to think if he's not allowed to put it into action. His thinking is pointless.
Compare this to the person who voluntarily accepts dependence. He isn't being forced into the situation where his mind is severed from his actions. He's accepting it willingly. If the evil of violating rights is preventing a man from acting on his own judgments, isn't it still wrong when he accepts it himself?
This is why the conventional view of independence must be tied to the independent thinking. Essentially, it provides the ability of the moral agent to act upon his independent thinking. It recognizes that if you aren't going to rely on others to form your own values, you shouldn't rely on them to put them into action. If you uphold your own mind as the final arbiter of what you should do morally, you shouldn't require the permission of others follow your judgment.
Independence means dealing directly with reality without a middleman. And that means both in the thinking and the acting. Anything else is allowing/requiring someone else to step in between you and reality, which means you and your life.
Discuss this Article (7 messages)
|
