QUOTES FROM RICHARD ROBINSON AN ATHEIST’S VALUES ON THE STATE AND POLITICS AND EQUALITY
Richard Robinson, An Atheist's Values, 1964.
PREFACE
Richard Robinson in this well written and once popular book is clear that
secular values are needed and can be justified without God and indeed should be.
He did not like the term humanist but did accept being labelled as a liberal.
Robinson was a true atheist and nothing in his work can be said to have smuggled
in Christian values. For example, he rejects love of neighour in favour of
making a choice not to make others more miserable than what they are or can be.
So he is not about good directly. He cautions that good is always flawed and has
the power to go wrong. He wants us to give ourselves the gift of living in
reality not some illusion.
Richard Robinson warns that nationalism involves myths about wrongs done to the
enemy of the nation. He could say the same about culture!
He says the state is not the people.
He says it is obvious that equality is a problem and nobody really believes in
equality as achievable across the board. There will always be casualties. To
make one equal the wrong way deprives somebody else. For example, if the law
proclaims the kings dogs to be people in the eyes of the law that threatens
anybody in the kingdom who kills them of facing a murder charge. A degrading
attitude to everybody then surfaces for it is not right to tell human beings
they can be considered murderers if they kill the dogs. And somebody could
easily be thought to have killed them.
Freedom causes problems with the harm principle – do no harm. The freedom to
have an abortion can lead to a baby being aborted when it should not have been
and had grown into personhood. Religious freedom for many religions has forced
female members to abort when it was really too late. You never know what a
religion's true power is or what it does until you give a member enough immunity
and power. Absolute power corrupts. Religion can only be judged on how well
members behave when given such power.
He examines if you defeat yourself by saying all people are fallible. It is true
we are but until we see that we are to let evidence teach and direct us we see
that we can weed out mistakes so human fallibility is not a problem.
He reminds us that we think too much of when the necessary evil of war should be
implemented but what about revolution? Nobody talks about it.
"Unlimited power corrodes the conscience and turns even the good evil." I would
say that unlimited power is not real but if you have enough of power or all the
power you want that can still happen. The power over your little family is all
the unlimited power you want. If God does all the decision making you can get
unlimited power simply by assenting to him freely. The tyrant has to depend on
others for power and you are depending on God. To claim to believe in God is
really to make yourself God.
THE QUOTATIONS
Nationalism tends to involve myth. It usually involves the anthropological myth
that the citizens of the State are all of the same race and culture and comprise
everybody who is of that race and culture. It usually involves also some
historical and half-religious myth about the past wrongs suffered by the State.
George Orwell brought out this point.
We must insist on the reality of the State and of its absolute right. It is
impossible justly to understand human political experience if we reduce the
State to a mere convention, an artificial device of individuals to secure their
own rights or the objects of their desires, or if we fail to appreciate the
sense in which the State is a necessary and natural being, and even prior to the
individuals themselves. It does not merely follow from the good pleasure of its
citizens; neither do its rights depend solely upon their permissive agreement.
The State's good is sometimes confused with the good of its individual citizens,
so that to refuse to aim at the State's good looks like being selfish towards
fellow citizens. … A State is not a people, for 'the people of the plains' and
'the people who like opera' are not States. A State is a certain political
organization of certain people. A State is not a government, but it has a
government.
Culture, on the other hand, is something you are not born with but receive after
your birth from those you live with. You get it from your parents only if you
live with your parents after your birth. You get it from all whom you live with
and to the extent to which you live with them. It is a vast complex of habits
and traditions of speech and thought and song and action and love and hate.
When the State is distinguished from all these other things, from land and
people and government and race and culture and nation and society, and seen to
be a political organization, which may or may not cherish certain people and
preserve some valuable land or culture or race, the impulse to worship it
evaporates. It is an organization like other human organization, more powerful
than most of them, hence more capable of evil, but capable also of helping
things that may be much better than itself, namely human beings and their
cultures.
You observe that I have not taken the positivist line that States do not exist.
I have said that they do exist but are not worshipful. States exist, and they
cannot be analysed away.
Do I wish all men to be exactly equal in all respects? Anybody who explicitly
asks himself that question answers no. I do not wish everyone to have a headache
when anybody has a headache. I do not wish all men to be produced by division of
the same egg, so that they all have the same genes, appearance, character, and
behaviour. I do not wish all girls to be equally black-haired, or all boys
equally good a t running a mile.
There are, however, many people who have never asked themselves this question
and are demanding whatever equalities have engaged their emotions, without
considering how far equalization should go or what is the good of it. …
Do I wish all men to be exactly equal in political power? To answer yes is to be
an anarchist.
According to Article 7 of a 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights Approved by
the General Assembly of the United Nations, Paris, 10th December, 1948 ... all
are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law'. Equality before the law is often demanded; but its air
of being selfevidently correct is deceptive. The phrase can mean two quite
independent states of affairs. First, it can mean that the law makes no
distinctions among human persons, but prescribes exactly the same voting rights
for foreigners as for citizens, exactly the same penalty for child murderers as
for adult murderers, exactly the same military service for women as for men, and
so on. In this sense, equality before the law is a character of the kind of law
that is on the statute book; and a student can tell in what respects a State has
this kind of equality by reading its laws. But the phrase often carries another
meaning, in which you cannot tell whether a State has equality before the laws
by reading its statutes, but only by observing how its policemen and judges and
jailers carry these statutes out. Do they carry them out impartially on all
sorts and conditions of persons, or do they prosecute lawbreakers of class A
while forgetting to prosecute lawbreakers of class B? Do they, for instance,
prosecute poor young men who steal bread for food and omit to prosecute rich
young men who steal street-signs for fun? Do they prosecute pedestrians who
occupy a square yard of the road for an hour, and omit to prosecute parking
motorists who occupy eight square yards of it for eight hours? And do they
extend to all men equally such protection as the law indicates, or do they turn
a blind eye to the injuries suffered by some while prosecuting the injuries
suffered by others?
Each of these two kinds of equality before the law can exist without the other.
Hence we need to ask of each separately whether it is desirable. Should the law,
whatever it is, be equally applied to all sorts of persons by its executioners?
That is to say, when the law does not itself direct its officers to make
discriminations or use their discretion, should they nevertheless do so?
A certain amount of discrimination is inevitable. No law can save the public
prosecutor from all need of deciding for himself whether to prosecute a
particular person. There are bound to be doubtful cases. There will often be
more cases than he has men and money to deal with. He must pick and choose. He
may, therefore, do this choosing rightly or wrongly. Is it any use telling him
that the principle of right choice is that all are equal before the law? I think
it is sometimes of some use. It may remind him of certain specific inequalities
which he is tempted to regard but ought to disregard, though he will have to
know by some other means what these inequalities are. It may remind him that the
inequalities he ought to regard, although they are not mentioned in the law, are
only such as are consistent with impartiality and fairness, for example, the
inequality between first offenders and habitual offenders, or between young and
old offenders. On the whole, it is significant and right to demand equality in
the administration of the law, although the administrator will always have to
make choices and notice inequalities.
Every law is by its nature a kind of equality, however many inequalities it
institutes. Suppose a law to say that white subjects may vote and black subjects
may not. Then, while it makes blacks unequal to whites, it leaves every black
equal to every other black and every white equal to every other white, and it
makes every black and every white equally subject to itself. This measure of
equality is inherent in every law that really is a law and not a mere decree
about some particular named person. But it is better to call it the rule of law
than to call it any kind of equality. (I owe this point to Professor Berlin's
excellent article on equality in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,
1955-6.)
To say that all men are in fact equal in every way would be a stupidly false
assertion, and would leave no further possible equality to be demanded in
politics. That all men are equally valuable in every way appears to be also
stupidly false, though something like it is implied whenever someone says 'I am
as good as any man', or talks about 'the infinite value of the human soul'. It
is also a plain falsehood that all men could, by some practicable arrangements,
be brought to be in the future equal in all ways. We never shall be, and never
could be, all equal in height and health and strength and longevity and charm
and intelligence.
[He talks about how Christian say all people are equal for all people have souls
unlike any other animal.] This is wholly unsatisfactory, because 'soul' is a
meaningless word. There is no way of teaching a person the meaning of this word,
so that to tell him that he has a soul is to tell him nothing.
Equality is a political perversion of that fundamentally unpolitical thing,
love.
The word 'freedom', like the word 'equality', is a vague, abstract, and relative
term which is offered to us as the name of a great political good. …'X is free'
is an incomplete statement, like 'X is equal' or 'X is prepared'. X is prepared
for what? X is equal to what and in what respect? X is free from what, and to do
what?”
Freedom is often harmful. Any kind of act will be harmful in some cases.
Therefore freedom to do a certain kind of act will be harmful in some cases, no
matter what kind of act you mention. Freedom of the press, for example, includes
the freedoms to ignore important events, to keep silent about evil deeds
committed by newspapers or journalists, and to pester suffering persons who are
news. This question is hard to distinguish from the question of the value of
States and governments in general. Why have them at all? Only because in some
way or other they increase welfare. Thus it seems that every State is
necessarily a welfare State; and yet we think of the welfare State as something
new. It is no doubt a matter of degree. It is a great difference of degree
whether the State is or is not a universal provider of education, of houses, of
medical attendance. It cannot be right to say that the State should try to
provide all the elements of welfare. It is certainly right to say that it should
try to provide some of them. So we may say that State action towards general
freedom from want is certainly desirable to some extent, but the question just
what State action is always to be answered anew. I add that I think it is better
to classify this matter under the head of freedom as little as possible.
The concept of freedom is very liable to muddles, because of its complicated and
negative nature and its emotional importance. .. freedom has often been confused
with power ... Freedom is in truth the absence of other men's interference with
my exercise of the powers which I have by my nature."
A certain fact has inflated this muddle to enormous size, namely the ambiguous
status of the laws of economics. Are they laws of nature or laws of man? If they
are laws of man they can be abrogated, and that would give us back a freedom in
the enduring and proper sense of 'freedom'. But if they are laws of nature they
cannot be abrogated, but at best circumvented or used to our advantage; and
using them to our advantage would give us more freedom only in the new and
improper sense of more power.
To demand toleration for someone is thus not merely to assert that we should
leave him free. It is to reassert this, or very nearly this, after someone has
interjected 'except to do evil'. To demand toleration is to demand that people
shall be left free even to do evil in many cases.
Robinson discusses how the law stops you hurting others but not necessarily
yourself, and that any attempt to outlaw harming yourself “fails because it
depends on a distinction that cannot be made in practice, the distinction
between harmful actions that harm only the agent and those that harm others too.
But, even if this distinction never can be rightly made, many authorities do in
fact appeal to it, for they claim to be restraining a person 'for his own good';
and Mill's principle says that this is an improper claim in any case. Mill's
principle involves that, whether or not it is possible to find actions that harm
the agent without harming anyone else, the claim that the action harms the agent
is never a good reason for the State to forbid it.
The State may not interfere with the individual merely on the ground that his
action is morally wrong. That an act is contrary to the moral law is no good
reason for suppressing it. Neither the government nor any other body or person
has a right to enforce all moral rules all the time. Neither the State nor any
church has a right to prevent men from doing what they ought not to do as such.
The view that 'the State has a right to punish all moral delinquency' (Montague,
op. cit., p. 192) is false; and is probably held only by confusion with the view
that the State has a right to compel a man to be moral when by so doing it can
prevent great harm to others. What gives the State a right here is the possible
harm to others, not the immorality of the act. If all morally wrong acts were
legally forbidden by the State, there would be no difference between morality
and legality, and the duty to obey the government would be man's only duty, and
no one could ever do the right thing in spite of there being no compulsion to do
it. That is, no one could ever do right 'of his own free will' as we say.”