| | Because common sense tells many people that they have free will and there are moral responsibilities they need to fulfill. They have a well enough grasp that they could well neglect these (which is when they may be said to be acting irresponsibly and can be blamed for this), or fulfill them in exemplary fashion (which is when they deserve praise).
Blame from whom? Praise from whom?
From adults to children is one thing. But what of from among adults, as peers?
We can appeal to 'common sense' and often do, without controversy. But often enough, with-- resulting in an endless mostly political struggle.
Without any agreement on the ethical basis for those 'moral responsibilities' this can easily be, simultaneously administered, blame from those we disagree with, and praise from those we agree with, as to the ethical basis involved.
If free association is free association, then ... we have to simply live with that plurality. In order to live in peace, we need to be free to live in tribes with which we agree, as to the ethical basis for those 'moral responsibilities.' That implies, a plurality of tribes.
And, there is the start of endless conflict, between tribes. There is the war between freedom and totalitarianism. It is not sufficient that Tribe A embraces the concept of 'free association' if Tribe B does not, and is endlessly demanding of Tribe A to relinquish its ethics in favor of their own.
There is no equivalency between the two tribes view. Tribe A adheres to relationships between adults as peers based only on free association. Tribe B enforces forced association, and justifies that based on its ethical foundations, even to the point of attacking Tribe A, which it awards itself 'moral obligation' points for carrying out that act of aggression. Tribe B justifies its aggression based on its alternative ethical basis. It's actions, it believes, are justified.
The conflict between these alternative Tribes, they claim, is a simple matter of differing opinions, a disagreement over ethics. In their view, a failure to accede to association by force is a crime, punishable by greater force.
Your life belongs to you: line up for Tribe A.
Your life belongs to the tribe: line up for Tribe B, and get ready to launch a Holy War on Tribe A. Because the Union/Tribe is everything. Because the Herd is All knowing, All deserving, and All powerful... and always spoken for by the few, and what the Hell is this Tribe A running loose in our tidy tucked in world, providing an inconvenient counter-example?
They know it's Tyranny, but it is Tyranny dressed up as a really, really good cause: theirs.
Existential fear is the key. They fear a world based on free association, and are willing to void the human concepts of generosity, benevolence, charity, regard for our fellow -- that is, peer, equal, like in kind, sharer of the commons, sharer of the public roads, no matter where they are going -- man. Their existential fear, loathing, and hatred -- of those they increasingly depend on, and to the extent that they depend upon them -- leads them to pursue a model of forced association, where their role is not to ask if and when and where need arises, but to tell. To command. And having moved ever closer to that world, unwilling to recognize its failure, as every day that passes our economies look more and more like a giant middle finger raised at each other.
What else could they be, under a model of forced association?
Are we there yet?
The totalitarians will not see the argument in those terms. They can't, it is an impossibility for them. They will skate and dance and shuck and jive, twirl and spin, snicker and sigh.
Everything but let go of the existential terror that drives them.
|
|
