The Immorality of Strict Values

Many belief systems advocate for a form of deontological ethics, the philosophy that actions should be judged based solely on strict moral rules, not the effects of those actions. Kant outlines this concept in his first work on ethics, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals [1]. We see this philosophy manifest in politics frequently, especially in the realm of liberal thought.

Recently, many have been critiquing the actions of Antifa groups. Antifa is short for Antifaschistische Aktion, or in english, Anti-Fascist Action. Currently Antifa groups are primarily composed of anarchist or communist groups, as shown by their red and black symbols and flags. Eventually I'll do a piece discussing Antifa and anarchism in more depth, but for now suffice it to say that they are radical leftist groups that oppose Trump and fascism. Antifa groups have staged a number of violent protest events, from their actions near the Trump inauguration [2] to shutting Milo Yannopolous out of UC Berkley [3]. The 'violence' referred to in the media primarily consists of damage to private property, something I would not generally consider violence. There have also been some situations where protesters have been involved in physical altercations with Trump supporters or neo-nazis, most notably with Richard Spencer [4].

Liberal columnists furiously attacked these situations, claiming that protests should never be violent, and that we must protect even neo-nazis' free speech. To return to my first paragraph, these individuals are establishing ethical rules, and thus following a philosophy of deontological ethics. This ends up being a weak position for a number of reasons. Deontological ethics always suffers from the question of how specific these moral laws can be- for instance, liberals who support wars certainly aren't claiming that violence is never acceptable. But then how do you differentiate- is it only acceptable when a state declares war? Then obviously you can't support the Germans resisting the Nazis from within before Ally involvement. This conversation often ends up at the conclusion that violence is only acceptable in self-defense, in a response to violence imposed on you. We'll come back to the specific example in a bit, I want to first explore this issue with deontological ethics further.

The primary alternative to deontological analysis is utilitarianism, or as Mill outlines in his formative work on the topic, the belief that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By ‘happiness’ is meant pleasure and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness’ is meant pain and the lack of pleasure" [5].

The disagreement between these two philosophies relates to the old trolley problem, first devised by Phillipa Foot in 1967 [6]. Say a trolley is hurdling down a track at 1000 people and your only recourse is to switch the track so the train hits another person. Most people would agree the more ethical action would be to switch the track, killing one man over 1000. However, when you make the two choices closer, say one person to save two, many people begin to question the righteousness of switching the track. The deontologist would come up with a moral maxim- that could something as broad as you should never directly lead to the death of a human. If that was the case the numbers wouldn't matter- you should never pull the switch. But of course that might not be the rule the deontologist settles on. I think most rational people would agree that killing people through inaction still carries a moral responsibility. Pete Singer outlines this (and much more) in a short story- virtually everyone would agree that, in passing a drowning child, there is a moral obligation to help that child [7].

The deontologist might create a rule such as "you may take the life of another human only if you save the lives of more". This rule takes us to an interesting point in this discussion. That rule sounds like a derivation of a utilitarian philosophy, which would of course call for switching the track if it did more good. This seems to be the problem that deontologists run into- if their rules are too broad, they create some very immoral actions, but when they get specific they become virtually indistinguishable from a utilitarian view. This is because most ascribing to deontological views use utilitarianism to determine their rules.

How does this relate to our debate between antifa and liberals? It really comes down to a discussion of means and ends. If we go back to the rule of violence only being acceptable in self-defense, I think that's still a problematic argument. It gives some sort of importance to the timing of events. If you could stop the murder of MLK by preemptively killing his future murderer, is that unacceptable? According to the self-defense rule, it is, as the violence hasn't occurred yet. I think a better rule would expand the definition of self defense to defense against future actions. But now haven't we just arrived at a utilitarian analysis again?

In Saul Alinsky's famous book Rules for Radicals, he lays out a set of 11 ethical rules of 'means and ends'. These emphasize the importance of often being flexible in the morality of means in an attempt to achieve a more important end. I tend to agree with this analysis. If the end you want to achieve is something as important as stopping cryptofascists from harming and subjugating the vulnerable, I think we must use whatever means will be effective. As Malcolm X said in his famous 1964 speech, "We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary" [8]. Note the phrasing Malcolm uses. Necessary. He isn't advocating for violence as a punishment towards the oppressors, or flagrant use of immoral tactics. He's advocating for doing what is justifiable by the high moral ground of the ends. You can argue about Antifa's effectiveness all you want (that's another discussion), but to condemn them solely on the morality of their tactics demonstrates a lack of philosophical thought.

[1]: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (Kant)
[2]: Majority of 230 protesters arrested on Inauguration Day will face 10 years in prison and $25k fine as US attorney says they will be charged with felony rioting (daily mail)
[3]: ‘Black bloc’ protests return for Trump era, leaving flames, broken windows from D.C. to Berkeley (cnn)
[4]: White nationalist Richard Spencer punched in the face camera while doing interview (youtube)
[5]: Utilitarianism (Mill)
[6]: The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect (Foot)
[7]: The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle (Singer)
[8]: Malcolm X’s Speech at the Founding Rally of the Organization of Afro-American Unity (1964)