Can we have the Nanny State back please?

In decades past, much of state policy had a moral dimension to it - including concepts such as the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor - which influenced the degree and nature of any help or benefits offered.

We now expect the State not to make judgements about the ways in which people live. So the tax and benefits systems treat people the same, regardless of behavioural choices or lifestyle. Thus we affirm that it is not the job of the State to make moral judgements and so avoid having a 'Nanny State'. After all, it is not the job of the State to decide who is 'right' or 'deserving'!

At first sight this appears to be fair: people are treated equally regardless of their circumstances, and it avoids the State having to make difficult judgements at an individual level; straightforward regulations can be drawn up which apply to all.

But this stance has a number of unintended consequences: in avoiding making moral judgements, we promote amorality. And in an amoral society we do not face any consequences from our decisions; it makes no difference if we behave morally or immorally, responsibly or irresponsibly! Moreover, this system is not felt to be 'fair' either, for some groups are widely felt to be 'milking the system' at the expense of 'the rest of us'.

So there is a perverse consequence of this amoral stance: the irresponsible are in effect rewarded, by not reaping any negative consequence from their actions; and the responsible are in effect discriminated against, for there is no positive outcome from taking personal responsibility, as well as from having to pick up a share of the consequences arising from others' irresponsible behaviour.

And hence the 'neutral' stance is not neutral after all: in being amoral, we are promoting amorality. A state system which is blind to people taking personal responsibility, encourages and grows immature and irresponsible people. People unfamiliar with difficult moral decisions and judgements are ill-equipped to do so when needed, including about the interplay of personal and societal responsibilities.

And those who sneer at idea of the 'Nanny State' and strut around saying 'they don't want to be treated like children' appear to be behaving exactly like stroppy children who are trying to assert that they are grown up.

Others say that grappling with morality is the responsibility of the church, not the state. In part this must be true, for the ultimate questions of right and wrong are religious. But making judgements about balancing personal and societal responsibilities are not just a religious matter. People who have no religious faith make judgements of this kind all the time, and the state cannot wash its hands of doing so too; that is the state shirking a difficult responsibility!

Personally, I would rather we grappled with the problems associated with a Nanny State, than promoted an amoral culture. The former pushes us as a society to make judgements which balance the needs of the individual with the best interest of society. This will certainly involve difficult discussions and decisions about what is 'moral' or 'right', and what 'acting responsibly' means in relation to the rest of society.

But promoting an amoral culture is definitely wrong!