We commonly hear the argument about people being responsible for their own decisions:
- if someone wants to smoke despite knowing the health risks, then that is their choice
- if adults want to watch pornography, they are free to choose to do so
- if people want to drink to excess, then they are responsible for their own actions.
In each case the argument is that people are responsible for their own actions and choices; it is not for anyone else to interfere or restrict their freedom. So the gainsayers are routinely dismissed as restricting free choice and taking responsibility from people for their own decisions.
So tobacco firms state that consumers are free to make up their own minds about smoking cigarettes; those who produce pornography state that adults can choose to watch whatever they wish; and drinks manufacturers and distributors say it up to the drinker to be sensible.
But where does responsibility actually lie?
It is true that each person must take responsibility for his or her own actions. But all the above examples - although they sound reasonable - only look at one end of the transaction; they tell just half of the story:
- Manufacturers of cigarettes are also responsible for their actions, and, as they know that cigarettes harm people's health, they produce goods and make a profit by helping people to harm themselves
- The producers of pornography are also responsible for their actions, and do work that degrades and can be dangerous to their actors, and which encourages damaging attitudes to sexuality amongst their viewers
- And retailers who sell alcoholic drinks in promotional multi-packs below cost price are also responsible for their actions in promoting irresponsible drinking.
So, while each individual is responsible for their own choices and actions and cannot simply blame the manufacturers, the manufacturers cannot evade their own responsibility by hiding behind the 'freedom of choice' argument; to do so is disingenuous. Denying their own responsibility and making a profit by helping people to harm themselves in one way or another is not just unethical, they are also responsible!
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!
It's common childhood behaviour to push boundaries. In fact, long before teenage-hood, children discover the power and felt enjoyment in saying "No!". And usually it is only much later that we realise the reasons for those rules, which were usually designed for our own good.
God the Father, like human fathers (and mothers) also lays down the limits, the rules, the boundaries. Unlike human fathers, God's rules are always for our good. But, like children, we, the human race, are well practised in saying 'no' and pushing any boundaries we dislike.
The most basic set of rules were set out by God in the 10 commandments:
God said: “I am the Lord your God ... You shall have no other gods before me."
And we said: "All religions are of equal value and each person can worship whatever or whomever they want; equality demands that no god is put before others".
God said: “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God"
And we said: "If I want to bow down to manmade statues or ideas, or to worship money and material things, why shouldn't I?"
God said: “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
And we said: "Jesus, can't I even say what I want?"
God said: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy."
And we said: "No chance! Sunday is the best shopping day!"
God said: “Honour your father and your mother"
And we said: "Honour them! It was due to them that I inherited these ugly genes, and it was them who screwed me up as a child by continually nagging and denying me what I wanted."
God said: “You shall not murder."
And we said: "On this we agree, though if people get killed in the third world through our using cheap labour, that's not our fault, it's just market forces."
God said: “You shall not commit adultery."
And we said: "Eh? What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them, so don't treat us like children!"
God said: “You shall not steal."
And we said: "You shall not steal my things. But if I rob those in the third world and future generations, that doesn't count."
God said: “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour."
And we said: "I deny it! And if you continue with that slander I'll call my solicitor!"
God said: “You shall not covet your neighbour’s house ... or anything that belongs to your neighbour.”
And we said: "But he's got a bigger house than me, and just look at that car!
It seems we're still toddlers pushing boundaries...
Bible excerpts from Exodus Ch20 (NIV)
