Perfectionism

From Hobson's Choice

A philosophy of justice that holds the greatest good is the cultivation of meritorious conduct. Perfectionism is used in vernacular speech to refer to perfection without regard to the opportunity costs; in moral philosophy, however, "perfect" is used as a verb, not as an adjective. The object is the stimulation of a nonneutral conception of the good. A shortcoming of this essay is that it does not deal with the rigorous critiques of perfectionism (see External Links below for that), but instead with perfectionism as a vernacular attitude.

1 Context
2 Incentives
3 Perfectionism in Law
4 Notes
5 External Links

[edit]

Context

Moral philosophy includes a fairly important cleavage between adherents of perfectionism and "neutralism." In the formal sense, it must be mentioned that it is not possible to reliably infer the political views from the philosophical position.^[1] This is because in between the perfectionist-neutralist stance is another layer of philosophical inference: the logical valuation (or prioritization) of guiding principles that arises. For example, Rawls is not a perfectionist, but he was noted for reviving Kantian (i.e., non-consequentialist, or rules-based) morality by applying "liberal neutralism" over the longest possible time horizons. A second layer of inference is the conclusion of what rules actually arise from a non-contradictory application of these guiding principles.

However, for polemical philosophy, the linkage tends to be more direct. Usually, perfectionism outside of the academy takes the form of exaggerated loyalty to incentive structures, such as punitive legalism or laissez-faire capitalism. For this reason, perfectionist arguments are a staple of the political right in most times and places.

[edit]

Incentives

The crucial distinction between liberalism and conservativism is the explanatory narrative for social problems; conservatives believe the problem is that persons outside the power structure are allowed to attack it, or a have attacked it, while liberals believe the problem arises from a failing of the power structure itself. However, both liberals and conservatives may well be rightwing in their goals: the liberal may, for example, recommend a refinement of the incentive structure, while the conservative favors that it be applied more remorselessly.

An example is the dispute in many countries over response to AIDS. In the 1980's, AIDS was initially known as the Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID) and mostly ignored by health services; many political officials argued against aggressive action to develop treatment and cures for AIDS, on the grounds that AIDS patients were homosexuals and drug-users, and hence, had "brought their disease on themselves."^[2] Opponents of sex education have alleged that providing information on birth control or STD prevention has led to the normalization of sexual immorality. A logical inference is that it's worthwhile for young people to suffer unwanted pregnancies and congenital syphilis if it makes a large number abstain sexually. Proponents of the "War on Drugs" insist on maximizing the consequences to users of non-sanctioned drugs, regardless of common-sense.^[3]

Another example of perfectionism in political life is extreme zeal on behalf of laissez-faire capitalism. Classical economic theory maintains that the difference between capitalists and proletariats is one of primitive capital accumulation, in which past generation of producers sacrificed present consumption for future affluence. Hence, the greater the gap between rich and poor, the better; for this provides so much the greater incentive for workers to work hard, produce more, and save the surplus between income and the costs of bare necessities. Yet the same classical economists maintained the existence of an "iron law of wages," which suggests that workers were usually at the level of subsistence. Since the advent of Marginalism in the 1870's, economists have insisted that even the most minute interference in the desires and power of business management will lead to reduced productivity. While classical liberalism is notionally utilitarian, under the influence of post-Keynesian philosophers such as James Buchanan, it may be said to have pushed utilitarianism into disrepute. Instead, it is argued that there can never be any legitimate pursuit of social democratic aims, and any such objective is doomed even from a conceptual basis.^[4] While he is not a philosophical perfectionist, Buchanan's essays tend to mold "classical liberalism" into something virtually indistinguishable from natural law perfectionism, in which the pursuit of wealth under capitalism is the eudaemonia of ethics.

Despite the learned objections of near-perfectionists, public choice theory and legal doctrines associated with modern economics are indistinguishable from actual perfectionism. The point of capitalism as an all-encompassing dogma of social relations (as opposed to a mere system of economic management) is, firstly, that discussion of capitalism is anathematized a priori; questioning it is regarded as morally reprehensible. Such an attitude implies that, however writers like Buchanan might protest, capitalism has indeed become the eudaemon of a perfectionist philosophy. Second, the application of capitalism to all aspects of the social order is intended to impose incentives relentlessly: behavior that is not conducive to production and capital accumulation, is to be punished relentlessly. Poverty is hence regarded as a necessary punishment, and in accordance with perfectionist legal theory, needs to inflict maximum asperity.

[edit]

Perfectionism in Law

Rumble thy bellyful! Spit, fire! spout, rain!
...Here I stand, your slave,
A poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man:
But yet I call you servile ministers,
That have with two pernicious daughters join'd
Your high engender'd battles 'gainst a head
So old and white as this. O! O! 'tis foul!
[King Lear, III.ii]

Perfectionism in law takes two forms. The first is the principle that the law can and should be used to mold virtuous behavior.^[5] Legal perfectionism is not merely the view that society has a right to make judgments pertaining to morality;^[6] in common law, that question has long been settled in the affirmative. It insists that the law has a legal obligation to enforce and promote the consensus morality. Legal moralism is not the same thing as legal perfectionism, however, because moralism employs a utilitarian (and therefore neutralist) argument: society requires a consensus of moral values, ergo, the law is needed to criminalize violations of inconsequential but immoral acts. Perfectionism takes this a step further, and argues that the primary purpose of law is to "perfect the character and elevate the taste" (Feinberg) of citizens.

The second form of legal perfectionism is the relentless application of incentives. A case in point is capital punishment, which is intended to complete (as far as possible) the range of incentives from good (rewards with wealth, power, and prestige) to bad (execution). In the early 19th century, capital punishment was reformed in Europe to limit this to the actual death of the condemned; prior to this, condemned could suffer intentional torments such as wheeling or disembowelment, while their relatives could also be punished. War may be described as a scheme under which a hostile power uses its military to "motivate" the other's population to cease resistance. The Geneva Convention has long recognized that some methods of waging war are unacceptable, even if the war aims are just. Hence, militaries are obligated to protect the lives of POW's even when doing so interferes with those aims; and it bears noting that defeated militaries are held to the Geneva Conventions. War aims, and the accepted public morality that perfectionist legal doctrine is supposed to uphold, are contravened by the laws of war and the existence of conflicting normative goals.

In a society that rejects totalitarianism, laws are understood to serve the polity. The polity, however, is known to be self-regarding. As a basic principle of decency, the state must necessarily restrain the polity from the fullest extent of self-serving legal behavior. The doctrine of perfectionism elevates that self-regard to the same status as bloody constraint; it effectively subverts the concept of rights from the "back door" as it were, by granting the polity the full rein over each individual. When a polity is dominated by one class, and the accused belongs to another, it is vital that the accused submit to the lawful authority, as a prerequisite of civil order. However, it is also vital that the lawful authority recognize it is but a servile minister, joined in battle against the frailest head of all.

[edit]

Notes

↑ A listing of neutralist and perfectionist philosophers sheds little or no light on the political ramifications of formal perfectionism: William Galston is a noted Usonian liberal, as well as a perfectionist philosopher, while John Finnis is a classic paleoconservative. Neutralists include the rightwing "objectivist" Robert Nozick, but also John Rawls (a political conservative who is popular with liberal readers) and liberal Ronald Dworkin.
↑ Randy Shilts, And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic St. Martin's Press (2000), e.g, p.471.
↑ See "Overdose Rescue Kits Save Lives," All Things Considered (NPR, 8 Jan 2008):
Bertha Madras, deputy director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, opposes the use of Narcan in overdose-rescue programs... Madras says the rescue programs might take away the drug user's motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment.
A more logical interpretation is that making sure drug overdoses are fatal furnishes justification for relentless prosecution of the "War on Drugs."
↑ A particularly convincing example of this is James Buchanan's The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy (complete text online) Liberty Fund (1985). Buchanan is actually a very talented writer and thinker, which explains his Nobel Prize in Economics. I am aware of the fact that Buchanan has gone out of his way to insist that he is not a perfectionist (see Why I am not a Conservative, 2005).
↑ Joel Feinberg, Harmless Wrongdoing, Oxford University Press US (1990), "Legal Perfectionism and the Benefit Principles," p.277ff.
↑ Ibid, p.134ff.