Economics
Alain Badiou
I’m just getting into Alain Badiou’s Ethics. Here are some quotes from Badiou:
“A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity.”
“Evil is the interruption of a truth by the pressure of particular or individual interests.”
“Evil is the moment when I lack the strength to be true to the Good that compels me.”
“Liberal capitalism is not at all the Good of humanity. Quite the contrary; it is the vehicle of savage, destructive nihilism.”
“Our democracy is not perfect. But it’s better than the bloody dictatorships. Capitalism is unjust. But it’s not criminal like Stalinism. We let millions of Africans die of AIDS, but we don’t make racist nationalist declarations like Milosevic. We kill Iraqis with our airplanes, but we don’t cut their throats with machetes like they do in Rwanda, etc.”
“It is necessary to examine, in a detailed way, the contemporary theory of Evil, the ideology of human rights, the concept of democracy. It is necessary to show that nothing there leads in the direction of the real emancipation of humanity. It is necessary to reconstruct rights, in everyday life as in politics, of Truth and of the Good. Our ability to once again have real ideas and real projects depends on it.”
“The ethics of Truth always returns, in precise circumstances, to fighting for the True against the four fundamentals forms of Evil: obscurantism, commercial academicism, the politics of profit and inequality, and sexual barbarism.”
“Evil is the interruption of a truth by the pressure of particular or individual interests.”
“Evil is the moment when I lack the strength to be true to the Good that compels me.”
“Liberal capitalism is not at all the Good of humanity. Quite the contrary; it is the vehicle of savage, destructive nihilism.”
“Our democracy is not perfect. But it’s better than the bloody dictatorships. Capitalism is unjust. But it’s not criminal like Stalinism. We let millions of Africans die of AIDS, but we don’t make racist nationalist declarations like Milosevic. We kill Iraqis with our airplanes, but we don’t cut their throats with machetes like they do in Rwanda, etc.”
“It is necessary to examine, in a detailed way, the contemporary theory of Evil, the ideology of human rights, the concept of democracy. It is necessary to show that nothing there leads in the direction of the real emancipation of humanity. It is necessary to reconstruct rights, in everyday life as in politics, of Truth and of the Good. Our ability to once again have real ideas and real projects depends on it.”
“The ethics of Truth always returns, in precise circumstances, to fighting for the True against the four fundamentals forms of Evil: obscurantism, commercial academicism, the politics of profit and inequality, and sexual barbarism.”
|
Do the means justify the ends?
I am surprised by how often this simple idea comes to bear. Do the means justify the ends? Does the result justify how we get to it? I suppose this concept is most easily broken up into its three main linguistic groups: the subject, verb and direct object.
The Ends
It is fascinating how those who would vehemently deny this ideology are tempted by it when the ends are so productive and positive. When the end enables solving world hunger, when it reduces violence by preventative means (phone tapping), or other such positives. Sometimes the ends are so attractive, that the means become irrelevant. In evaluating the means, should we take into account the ends? There is necessity in teleological thinking, particularly in terms of moral development, but for any goal minded individual. If the ends of decisions are not considered, then the means are completely unimportant. The ends are, ultimately, the goal. (Although the means are exceedingly important, they must be secondary otherwise no direction, progress or organized movement could be achieved. Even BASE communities, house churches, and the most organic organizations have a mission.) So, the question then is not “Do the means justify the ends?”, but “What sorts of means are acceptable for the ends that we have in mind?”
The Means
We most often think of means in terms of direct actions that conclude in results. I want to suggest the means as more intimately connected with the character of the individual or organization which is pursuing some sort of telos. The ends and the means are so tightly connected together that they cannot be taken apart to evaluate separately. The means dictate the sorts of ends that are possible to achieve. Peace cannot be achieved with a sword. Love cannot be attained by coercion. The sorts of means we engage directly defines the sorts of ends that result.
The Justification
This idea of the entwined nature of means and ends leads to a reinterpretation of justification. Justification is not solely focused on the result, but on the way to achieve that result. This is part of the ideas of being vs. becoming. The becoming is the end: who we are becoming is intensely important, but who we are now (our being) defines in part who we become. (I leave here only a mention of the supernatural, though at the moment I am unsure how God works in these ways.) So, if one wants to become a virtuous person, or if a community wants to engage in peace and reconciliation, or if a nation desires economic justice and international cooperation, how they are acting in the present defines how those teleological goals will or can come into being.
Tithing
I had a realization today. There is much discussion about economics and economic policy, particularly as elections are coming up. Often times as Christians we try to connect what we see as Scripture to how we do life, and sometimes (for good and evil) we try to literally follow the prescriptions of Scripture. Late last year, when Huckabee was still a viable candidate his tax policy was considered by some - the flat tax where income is not taxed but only an enormous sales tax is levied on all products. The tithe of the Old Testament represents a very new and different form of taxation/public support. Not only does the theocratic form of government necessitate a different understanding of this economic interaction, but the very form of the tithe is not an income tax. Instead the tithe is a full wealth tax - the 10% is taken from everything that a family owns, not just the money (sheep, goats: livestock) earned in one year. This is has some impressive implications, namely that the distribution of wealth would be much more aggressively achieved. I do not know the reproductive rates of livestock, but there are few people who grew their entire wealth by 10% in one year. Jubilee, which is often so surprising, irritating and even odious to some, becomes far more easy to cope with when wealth is already being redistributed in such a serious manner. This definitely will require more thought later!