"With great power comes great responsibility."

This is the often quoted line spoken by Uncle Ben to Peter Parker in the first Spiderman movie, and inspires the gawky teenager to become a vigilante hero. (Will this line be repeated in the reboot?) Someone quoted it this morning [2/24] on one of the country music stations.

Conservatives may try to save rights language by coupling rights with duties or responsibilities -- "rights entail responsibilities," similar to the joining of liberty to responsibility. (They are identical if right is defined as the [moral] freedom to do x.) If liberty is by definition indeterminate with respect to the good, then it must be "compelled" [from without] to embrace the good or to be used "correctly." (The will is indifferent to good and evil acts in so far as it can choose either, but it is perfected by the former and not by the latter.)

In this post I won't be discussing rights and liberties, but only abilities and powers, and whether we can be required by law to use them for others. Even liberals can give some assent to the claim that we should act, or exercise our abilities responsibly. A superhero is not good because he does great things with his abilities, although children may think that way. Rather, great power requires great virtue for it to be exercised well and not poorly, or for evil purposes. A superhero must overcome not just evil people, but the temptation within to do evil. But Uncle Ben is saying more than this: those who have great power have a responsibility to use that to benefit others. Certainly this is the lesson that Peter Parker learns. Peter corrects his first realization that his failure to stop the robber cost his uncle his life. He comes to see that since he was there had the power to stop the criminal, he should have done something, and this was good for its own sake.

But in a liberal society, how can the linking of power with duty or responsibility be justified, if individual autonomy is the ultimate value? The liberal government may prohibit us from using our powers to harm others, but can it require that we use them for the sake of the good of others or ourselves? If I am better than you in some way, why should that fact alone entail that I should be required to exert a greater effort so that my ability is used to its fullest? And if a government should command me to do so, would that not be a violation of my rights? Even if I am stronger than you, why should a carry something heavier? Why shouldn't everyone be carrying the same or equal weight? That seems like equality to me. (This argument is often made by those who advocate everyone being taxed the same amount?)

A liberal state may be able to compel its members to defend it if it is under attack, because individuals can better attain their good with it than without. (Or, since individuals would have to defend themselves regardless, their chances of survival may be increased if they work together than by themselves. But what if the individual is ordered to sacrifice himself?) This is an emergency situation -- what if the community is not in immediate danger, and its survival is at risk? By what right can the state command me to do more to promote my well-being and that of others, whether it is because I have greater abilities than others or because I am not using all of my rather limited talents?

(If I am a citizen in a "democracy" and I vote or support such a law, then I am merely codifying what I have already chosen for myself. If I oppose such a law... then as a liberal I can argue that the state has no right to create this law.)

We may "intuitively" agree with Uncle Ben's statement, so how do we justify it? It seems to be something that is required, though not necessarily by positive law. If it were required by positive law, the civil government would be the author of the law, and our obedience to its authority would come into play. But we may grasp that this requirement is just, even if there is no human law to lay it out for us. We may understand that it is required for the sake of the common good or because of an even higher authority (Luke 12:48). If it is the former, then it seems we can by the use of our reason understand the demands of distributive justice upon us, just as the natural law commands us to use all of our abilities for the good of the community. It is distributive justice that justifies unequal burdens for unequals.

Because it does not admit that man has a social end or that there is a common good distinct from man's private good, liberalism appears to be unable to give a reason for the state to issue such laws. Rather, liberalism would have to prohibit this sort of legislation.

This gets me thinking -- how does the liberal justify taxation for the purpose of redistribution? As a means of avoiding conflict between the haves and haves-not? For some abstract notion of equality? Do liberals have a notion of distributive justice that can be harmonized with a more traditional notion?



Started on February 24.