Moral Agency

  What is moral agency? It is defined as the ability to make moral judgements on right and wrong. Each of us are moral agents. The question to be answered is, should government act as moral agents? Well, that's what a Republic is all about, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It's what those founding fathers were concerned about when establishing our government. The government is the moral agent for the nation. One nation. Therein lies the issue doesn't it, unity? Are we united as one? It would certainly appear that we are not. Oh we have had our moments, this nation of ours. Pearl harbor and the attack's on 9/11are prime examples of that. All Americans were united in their moral judgement that those actions were wrong. The official government response and the individual response being the same. United in agreement, if not in how to react to that judgment. The important thing was we all agreed. 

  There is another train of thought called ethical egotism. Ethical egotism believes the only way to achieve the common good is through pursuing your own self interests. Not a very popular thing to claim as it appears self centered. Ayn Rand is probably the best known advocate for that way of thinking. Now I'm no philosopher, at least not a trained philosopher that conforms to the educational model one is expected to have. The issue there being all of us having to be like minded, having a common self interest. That is where the real thinking/understanding process has to take place. Can a nation be like minded? There is much discussion about that being Nationalism, and we are being taught that to be nationalist is wrong. By extension then, ethical egotism has to be wrong as well. What is being advocated then is statism. In statism the state (government) has centralized control over social affairs as well as economic affairs. And statism is what liberals are really advocating for without admitting to that out loud. Ethical egotism is what the founding fathers advocated for, before that term was invented. The individual being the government! It's a difficult concept for most to comprehend. No, I shouldn't say that, it isn't that difficult to understand, it is difficult to live your life in that manner because it requires self accountability. You can't blame anyone else for your failures! You also can not be dependent upon others, ie: you act independently. 

  And that brings me to this mornings' thought. The politicians, those we elected to be our moral agents are acting independently, not as ethical egotists. If they acted as ethical egotists they would arrive at the same conclusions instead of being in constant conflict. Make no mistake about it, we the people have become the pawns in government, when we are supposed to be the Kings! How has that happened? Too many politicians not acting as moral agents, is the answer. They are the ones giving politicians a bad name. Abandoning their morality for self interests. What is that morality? Moral agency, the ability to determine right from wrong. In its' most basic form it is the golden rule. That is why ethical egotism applies as a ruling factor. "The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see." ~ Ayn Rand 

  Here is another quote" There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for me to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed or enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt." ~ Ayn Rand  

  An example, get vaccinated or you will be treated as a law breaker! Government will decide what is right and wrong, not you. Is that a moral judgement? It is when you are saying that same government can decide that abortion, as a moral choice, must be allowed. You can not on the one hand say I can choose to terminate a life, but I can not choose to not protect my own. I'm already empowered to kill another, under certain conditions, a conditional moral judgement, but the government shall be the moral agent? Just a bit ambiguous wouldn't you say?