A Dialogue on Moral Action

GBlagg: Merry Christmas.
Sticks and Stones: Yes. Merry Christmas to you, as well.
GBlagg: Something has been stirring in my mind lately that I hoped we could discuss...
S&S: Very good. Let’s have it.
GBlagg: Recently I overheard a group of ministers and such sermonizing about the ‘evils’ of cutting the Federal budget. They were bemoaning the immorality of this action and it got me thinking about morality...
S&S: Ok, this should be fun.
GBlagg: ...and what constitutes a moral action. It seems to me this should be a core issue at the very heart of the whole ‘values’ debate.
S&S: I believe you are correct. So let us begin with the notion of what actually constitutes a moral action.
GBlagg: Ok, I’m listening.
S&S: What is it, then, that separates any particular action from a moral one?
GBlagg: I don’t understand...
S&S: Well then, is every human action a moral one?
GBlagg: Of course not.
S&S: So there are, in fact, actions that are not immoral. This is a start. So, again, what makes an action moral? Here is an example. If a man’s unconscious act leads to a positive outcome, is this a moral action?
GBlagg: I would say not.
S&S: And why not?
GBlagg: Well, because there was no intent. There was no conscious decision to act in a way that would bring about the positive outcome. He basically dumb lucked into it. So his action, of itself, is not a moral action.
S&S: Correct. In order for an action to be considered moral, it must have a conscious intention. So what else is not a moral action?
GBlagg: Hmm. Is this where we get into the idea of right versus wrong...good versus evil?
S&S: There is an aspect of that. We now have conscious intent, but of what? Stemming from what?
GBlagg: A decision, obviously. To act in one way or another.
S&S: And what does this idea point to?
GBlagg: Ah...as always, choice.
S&S: Yes, ‘choice’. Whether right or wrong, as you say, or good or evil; there must be choice. Not only in that way, yet in another.
GBlagg: Explain...
S&S: Well, first let me ask you this...If a man is forced by another or by circumstance to act in a certain way and the outcome is a positive one, was his a moral action?
GBlagg: I would say no. If there is coercion, then his choice was not freely his. The act then is not in itself a moral one. And this point brings me to my original thought...
S&S: Go on.
GBlagg: These ‘religious’ men who claim it is moral to finance programs through taxation are, I feel, insulting the very definition of ‘morality’. The act of being taxed allows no choice, either ethically or intentionally. If a man does not pay his taxes, he will be fined or jailed. So there is no choice. As we have said, a lack of choice equals no morality. This is the same argument against using the word ‘compassion’ when dealing with many of these same issues.
S&S: Explain...
GBlagg: Again, it must be said, there is no true compassion where there is no choice. ‘Compassion’ can not be force fed. The taking of money through taxes and redistributing it to another is not ‘compassion’ it is coercion. And it is the same with the term ‘sacrifice’, as well.
S&S: You seem to be rolling, don’t let me stop you...
GBlagg: Let us look at a real life example of something that has a very real possibly of coming to fruition. Let us say the anti-WalMart activists do indeed reach their goal and unionize Walmart. This would raise the salaries of many employees, but dozens of tens of thousands of others would be laid off. The Walmart executives would surely cut the fat in-house...greeters and such, and likely raise the prices of their goods sold, as well, to make up the difference. This is basic economics. But if one was to point this reality out to the aforementioned activists, they would reply that some men must ‘sacrifice’ for the common good.
S&S: This is the Socialist’s mantra, but how does this relate to our discussion?
GBlagg: In the idea of ‘sacrifice’. ‘Sacrifice’ is only moral when it is self inflicted. When one man sacrifices another or even the property of another, neither have performed a moral action.
S&S: This seems to be the case. So what would you say all these things have in common?
GBlagg: Well, choice and intention, of course...
S&S: But there is more to it than that. Just what is it that has caused these terms we have discussed...moral acts, compassion, sacrifice, and such...to be misunderstood in the first place? Why have their definitions been usurped?
GBlagg: I see where you’re headed. It is the difference between the big ‘G’ and the little ‘g’.
S&S: Yes. When government becomes your god, meanings change. Choice is no longer governed by morality and conscience, by right or wrong; it is coerced through threat and fear. Government then defines right and wrong, what is moral, what is just. Tax cuts become ‘evil’, redistribution of wealth ‘compassionate’. ‘Sacrifice’ is no longer a personal choice, it is a duty compelled by government.
GBlagg: But why would any thoughtful man choose to live under such conditions? Ahh, I see, he does not choose...he is forced.
S&S: As you say.