Values

This was first written around the time The Possibility of Progress was published.  It's very much a work in progress, so I'd welcome any feedback.

How are we to know how society should be arranged and administered unless we are clear about our values: what we care most about; what we believe to be of fundamental importance; what we value most highly? Contemporary social and economic problems arise not so much as a consequence of many people having the wrong values, rather they are caused by an absence of values, widespread ignorance of the importance of values, and a general confusion of values with ideology.

It is the values which underscore our ambitions and aspirations for our own lives, those of our families, our communities, the wider community of human beings and the world we inhabit, which must illuminate the path to progress.

Without agreement on values, there is little chance of progress towards a more just, sustainable and inclusive world.  In my book, I generally refer to the values and world view likely to encourage progressive social change as universalism, but they might equally be referred to as values of progressivism or even inclusivism. The name is immaterial, what matters is that these values come to be held by many people in sufficient strength to encourage the consideration of social and economic problems in value terms, and to motivate people to act and behave so as create conditions in which greater social justice is achievable.  So what are the values of universalism?

First, that all human lives are of equal value, and that the interests of no individual, group or nation can be defended in terms, or through actions, which deny the equality of interests of all others.  If we choose to believe in such equality of interests (and, as individuals, we must consciously and positively make this choice) then as far as possible we must consider all our actions, behaviours and attitudes with reference to this value.

Next in the hierarchy of universal values is the belief in individual freedom.  All people should be free to choose for themselves the manner in which they live their lives, and the means by which they provide for their essential needs.  But this ultimate freedom comes with an obvious corollary.  The enjoyment of individual freedom by any individual or group must not deny or constrain the like freedom of any other.  Individual freedom implies a duty of responsibility towards others.  It is only in the full taking of this responsibility that an individual can fully realise his or her own individual freedom.

The principal constraint on the ability to enjoy the value in individual freedom is a lack of economic security.  In today's world, when we think about freedom we think in terms of freedom of speech and thought, the freedom to protest, a free press and the like.  Rarely is it acknowledged that those freedoms are worthless without a degree of economic security.  If an individual cannot access the means adequately to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families, then no amount of notional freedom will provide any compensation.

Today, we struggle under a system which provides economic security for only small minority of the world's people; a system which, in effect, protects the freedoms of that minority by actively denying economic security to the excluded majority.  It is the manner and means by which we administer the allocation of resources and the distribution of material wealth, which restricts the freedom of many millions of individuals.  It is our mode of economic organisation which makes it impossible to defend and promote the equal interests of all people.

The failure of the majority of the world people's people to achieve economic security is a direct consequence of their being denied fair and equal economic opportunities.  This is a complex and many-layered problem, but its root cause is to be found in the thought of the classical economist-philosophers of the enlightenment, in particular in David Ricardo's Law of Rent, which explains how, as the economy grows and becomes more complex, an increasing share of the considerable additional wealth generated inevitably falls into the hands of the owners and land and capital, at the expense of the vast majority of ordinary people who own no land and have no access to capital, and thus have no choice but to labour for wages.  A ready solution to this problem was proposed by an American named Henry George more than a century ago: to capture the fund of unearned income which accrues to the landowner as economic rent and use it to finance infrastructure projects and necessary public services from which the entire community would derive a benefit.

This brings us to a further, crucial value: the understanding that equality of interests, universal economic security and the ability to enjoy the value in individual freedom can only be realised and achieved under an economic order which provides universal equality of opportunity, and which does not reward a small minority simply because they have been able to secure for themselves access to the lion's share of economic resources.

Progressive social change, and a new inclusive economic order, can only arise from the democratic will of the people.  Today's democracy is only partial: too few people have any interest or understanding of economic realities, or recognise the inevitability of poverty and social injustice under prevailing arrangements.  We need an articulate and informed democracy, one in which politicians take their cue from the reasoned and reasonable desires and aspirations of ordinary people.  A fully functioning democracy will give birth to a new breed of politician, one which dares to be ambitious, and which understands that there is a solution to poverty and injustice; a solution which need only threaten the perceived interests of a tiny minority.

Many argue that providing equality of economic opportunity, or expecting all people to play an active and informed role in the political and economic decision making processes, is futile, given the vast and observable differences in ability, intelligence and motivation to be found among human beings.  This presupposes that such differences are the inevitable and unalterable result of the particular genetic make-up of different individuals.  Whilst genes undoubtedly pay a role in the formation of personality, there is no evidence to justify the claim that differences in ability and accomplishment in life are biologically determined.  At the same time, there is considerable evidence to suggest that environmental inputs have a huge impact on the development of personality, potential and therefore the life-chances of an individual.

A key value of universalism is the belief that only by creating conditions in which all people are able to achieve their natural potential, will we be able to learn exactly what those genetic constraints are, and to what extent they influence differences among individuals.  In his study of the stages of moral development, Lawrence Kohlberg taught us that there is an ultimate level of moral development towards which all people, if given a conducive environment, naturally aspire.  There is no biological limit on the capacity for moral development in any individual; the failure of so many of us to achieve the ultimate level of moral understanding and awareness is a consequence of environmental factors which are within our collective capacity to change.

In failing to address these issues, and in failing to acknowledge that all people are born equal and have equal rights in life, we have acquiesced in the establishment of an economic system which now threatens the freedom and security of us all, as we destroy the life-sustaining capacity of our planet in the pursuit of excessive material consumption.

The concluding value of universalism is belief in the possibility of progress.  Only when sufficient numbers share this belief, and begin to understand the forces ranged against progressive social transformation, will it be possible to extend the benefits of modernity, economic security and individual freedom to all human beings.