Improvement

We try to make the world a better place and for the most part fail. What is worse is that we have little way of measuring our success. Even if the changes we desire take place, there is no way of knowing to what extent this is a result of our efforts. Those who are successful at obtaining political office succeed by being changed to suit the world rather than changing the world to fit in with their ideals. They must implement a compromise between what the people want and what is good for them. The public attitude on an issue is shaped more by what they consider to be politically realistic than anything else.

This is why I want to change the system by changing common ideas about moral and ethical values. It is my contention that values that are good for the individual will also be good for society. This is because values that are self-centered will not succeed. Effective assignments of blame and credit will be based on principles that will protect everyone from harm and encourage people to help everyone.

A system of moral and ethical values that holds that the property rights of the rich are not important will harm its adherents. If you don't care about their property rights why should they care about yours. Hostility drives people away. Rich people can do things that are harmful, but so can people who aren't rich. Being rich is in no way inherently harmful.

Likewise we should not discriminate against the poor. Some people are actually inclined to violate the rights of the homeless. Their persons and property must also be respected. If you want them to take showers, then you can pay for it and encourage others to do the same.

In what way can moral and ethical values be tested? In order to determine whether one set of moral and ethical values is better than another, we would have to have some way of determining that it leads to some result that helps either the adherent or someone that the adherent cares about. There may be a form of cultural evolution at work here, where the good system of moral and ethical values out-competes other systems of moral and ethical values.

Perhaps our society can be improved by helping people form various communities based on differing moral and ethical values. Good values should out-perform bad ones. However, there are two points to make here. First is that a system of moral and ethical values itself can be self-serving in a metaphorical sense. By this I do not mean that individuals will adopt systems of moral and ethical values that serve themselves, but that the system of moral and ethical values will have features that promote the system itself. I suspect that in practice this is much less of a problem than we would think. More seriously it may be the case that giving too much work to the state limits competition in such communities.

The reason why I think that the first problem is not as serious as we would think is that the selfishness of institutions can be reduced by competition. For instance, if a religion requires that you engage in annoying proselytizing, then this will harm you. People will have a natural incentive to leave such an organization unless it is able to provide compensating benefits. Competition will increase efficiency from the point of view of the adherent. We would expect organizations to provide more benefit and less harm to the adherent. Some might object that religions could give themselves an advantage by offering fraudulent benefits in the next life. I suspect that unless such an organization provides benefits in this life, they are unlikely to out-perform those that do.

The serious problem caused by enlarging the state is that there is a danger that people will see moral and ethical values as political issues. Our political system results in two sides squaring off against each other. The problem here is that two sides does not come near enough to exhausting the possible systems of moral and ethical values. Issues of sexual morality are tied to social programs. Stands on both issues are tied in with ideas about Biblical inerrancy. Does it really seem that one side would get everything right?

Once we start using the coercive power of the state, we have stopped reasoning with people. We have quit trying to persuade them that our position is right. Any position that is held by a small minority can be dismissed immediately on the basis that it is politically unrealistic. When an issue is seen as being outside of the role and scope of government, people will always be looking for ways to increase support. They will need to examine the arguments on the other side in order to respond to them and persuade the people that raise such arguments that their fears about the proposal are groundless. Failing to come up with good arguments, some people might actually change their minds about an issue.