Chafuen – Regaining the Moral Foundations of the Free Society
Alejandro Chafuen
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
"Regaining the Moral Foundations of the Free Society"
Philadelphia Society Meeting
April 29, 1995
This is a marvelous age. Never before has humanity had so many means at its disposal. The rapid
pace of change surprises us each day with the wonders of new technologies. Advances in
communications, medicine, and biology promise a new era of material abundance. The globalization
of the economy disseminates these new fruits to different regions of the world.
There are many, however, who feel that essential aspects of human life conducive to a happy
civilization, are withering away. Contemporary man cannot explain why, but he realizes that the
rapid moving ship of the current culture has lost its direction. Even those who are convinced that
they have a compass, and therefore a sense of direction, confess that they know not the meaning of
North, South, East and West.
A major menace for the recovery of the moral aspects of society, is the assumption by many that
liberty is the biggest danger for morality. Liberty, on the other hand, is the only medium in which
morality can exist.
Edmund Burke wrote that "Old establishments are tried by their effects." (2) What we see today in
the western world are the effects of an old establishment. I do not know if conditions could ever get
so bad for conservatives to call for a revolution. Watching today’s cultural trends, there are many
who are calling for something very close to it.
To regain is to recover what has been lost. To reclaim is to rescue or bring back (a person or
people) from error, vice, or savagery. Our moral foundations need both, but "regaining" seems to
me a more accurate, and less presumptuous word. Reclaiming seems to focus on "them" and to
take for granted that we know what we need to bring back. Only if we put the focus on us we will
have any chance to recover first for ourselves, and then for our neighbors, those moral foundations
which made this country an example for the rest of the world.
The Nature of Man
Freedom and intelligence are the two essential qualities of the human person. The person is the only
being capable of self-possession, self knowledge, and the only creature with the capacity of acting
freely. Those of us who are Christians believe that these attributes stem from the fact that we were
created by God in his image. We sense that there is a radical difference between us and other
creatures but it is our belief in God which makes us know that we are free beings. Those who do
not believe in God, and end up believing in human freedom, have less levels of proof for this
freedom. They can, nevertheless, follow their conscience and the principles of natural law, and
accompany us in our journey. (3)
Those who have a faulty idea of the nature of man, will have a faulty idea about themselves. They
have very limited means to contribute positively to the moral regeneration of the Western world.
Different ideas about human nature exist also among those whom we regard as conservative
thinkers. Frank Meyer, for example, argued that conservatives of the 19th-century, at least in a
major aspect of their thought "failed philosophically, deeply misreading the nature of man. They
would not or they could not see the correlative to their fundamental philosophical position:
acceptance of the moral authority derived from transcendent criteria of truth and good must be
voluntary if it is to have a meaning; if it is coerced by human force, it is meaningless. They were
willing, if only the right standards were upheld, to accept an authoritarian structure of state and
society." (4)
Libertarians and conservatives alike, are today stressing the intimate connection between freedom
and moral virtue. Tibor Machan, who as other libertarians has a deep appreciation for Aristotle’s
contributions, wrote that "some crucial passages of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics show a
recognition of the fact that moral virtue is intimately tied to our capacity for choice, for taking the
initiative, for volitional conduct. Only those virtues that are practiced as a matter of volition can be
genuine moral virtues. And this makes good sense." (5) This is not surprising coming from a man
who argues that the "metaphysical freedom that I find evident is one that is Aristotelian or Randian."
(6) Not only Aristotle, but Aquinas, and John Paul II, frequently reminded their students and
readers of the same point: "Man cannot be forced to accept the truth. He can be drawn toward
the truth only by his own nature, that is, by his own freedom . . . This has always been the teaching
of the Church." (7)
Unless one has a clear understanding of the intimate connection between truth and freedom, it is
easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the freedom to choose, and not the freedom to choose
wisely, is the essential liberating act. This does not mean that we have to give power to "the wise"
who, in turn, will help us free ourselves. The "wise" are as capable of evil as the unwise, "the danger
of selfish freedom will always be present." (8) Due to the unfortunate reality of sin, this danger
cannot be suppressed by political or educational means. It can only be reduced.
Apart from knowing what the human person is, it is also useful to know how we rank in
comparison with other creatures. Those who do not understand the radical difference between man
and the rest of creation are promoting new perverse moral codes. Judaeo-Christians have an
additional insight: God created everything for man. (9) St. John Chrysostom refers to humans as
"that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures!
For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist." (10) Persons who are
not aware of their privileged position in creation have a bigger chance to fall into error. If men are
like animals or vegetables, the whole field of ethics would turn into nonsense. Some might still
defend man’s supremacy based on human might, but will might also occupy a primordial role in their
moral edifice?
Going Beyond Economics: Is it Possible?
As an economist, I always feel frustrated when friends argue that economic science might say one
thing but, as not everything is economics, ethics, religion, or theology, should have precedence.
Going "beyond" economics, makes sense, when one seeks to give direction to economic activity
with the knowledge achieved from sciences with a higher, but not incompatible, formal object.
Going beyond a bridge does not mean to avoid the bridge or going in the opposite direction. We
should have the same attitude toward economics.
Economics is an essential, and inescapable, aspect of human action. Wherever there is freedom to
use and scarcity of a resource there will be economic laws producing the natural effects of human
actions. To believe that one can analyze human action with no regard to economics, is as useless an
abstraction as trying to analyze human action as if human beings would not have a will, a heart, a
soul, or intelligence.
The fact that the next section of this essay will be devoted to "reclaiming our personal moral
foundations" does not mean that I neglect the importance of economic knowledge and incentives.
Economic policy and theory are a source of fusion rather than dissent between conservatives and
libertarians. If we neglect economic understanding our moral life might end up being lived in a jail. I
also hope that the current focus by donors and "freedom fighters" on grassroots and political
activity will not encourage neglect of economic education.
Grassroots activism needs direction. When I worked in San Francisco, one of the Churches I
attended had an activist housing organization. Its goal was to pass more restrictive rent control laws
in the area. Unless directed to a good end, personal involvement in community affairs can help
weaken, rather than restore, moral foundations. Another example comes from Rappahannock, an
"idyllic" rural county in Virginia. Its minimum 25 acre zoning laws keep most of the poor out, no big
supermarkets, beautiful scenic and clear rivers, great mountains. The Rappahannock League for
Environmental Protection’s (RLEP) annual meeting takes place just before the Christmas season.
The RLEP celebrated the season dancing with the Friends of Gaia, the pagan goddess. The
speaker at the event spoke about the importance of defeating the plans of a major corporation (11)
to build a theme park in a neighboring county and concluded that "we learned how bad it is for
government to solicit the business it is supposed to regulate." RLEP is another "good" grassroots
community organization. Its contribution to rebuilding the moral foundation of this country is
dubious at best.
In order for their efforts not to backfire, or cause effects opposite than the intended, Churches,
neighborhood associations, grassroots activists, need the help of sound economic analysis. The
economic education conducted by institutes such as The Acton Institute, Toward Tradition (both
in the USA), the Social Affairs Unit, the I.E.A. Education Unit (both in the U.K.), and Aleps
(France), just to mention a few, can have a very salutary effect on religious groups. The efforts of
free-market environmental think tanks, can also help improve the policy positions of groups such as
our local environmental leagues.
Despite all these efforts we should not assume that political and economic education and
involvement is sufficient to refocus civilization. They can help change the incentive structure but as
C.S. Lewis correctly remarked, "nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever
going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft
or bullying that go under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find
some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by
law: and without good men you cannot have a good society." (12)
Do not think that because some of your friends got elected or occupy important positions in society
the task will be much easier. Sir Antony Fisher, the great founder of economic research institutes,
also shared this view "if my interpretation of democracy is correct it is sound morals that really give
a nation power and wealth." (13) Good morals are not a result of electoral victories.
Two pillars for Reform
Anything that improves the moral behavior of a person will help us get closer to the goal of
reclaiming the moral foundations of society. All virtues are connected and one cannot live any virtue
at its fullest unless living all of them perfectly. I will focus on only two of the many things we can do
toward our goal.
Do not make a standard of morality out of your personal weaknesses.
A recent survey reported that obedience was very low in the parent’s scale of children virtues. It
seems to me that parents have a low regard for the importance of obedience on others because
they themselves have no respect for obedience to authority. A television commercial for an
automobile recently depicted a bride to be, fully dressed up, flying away from her wedding after
hearing the dreaded words from the officiating priest "women obey your husbands." The word
"obey" echoing frightfully in her brain. Obedience is not only for religious people, wives, or children,
it is also for single men and husbands.
When our failures are about more serious matters, the "natural" tendency to use our lives as an
example for others can have devastating consequences. Those who have recommended,
performed, or assisted in the act of terminating a life in a womb, might be tempted to endorse a
relativistic attitude toward the topic. A similar thing might happen with those of who have been
sexually promiscuous. I have a tendency for disorder in material things and have to work very hard
at not justifying my children’s disorder.
Almost all the cultural indicators which show a worrisome trend can be traced back, to a lowering
of moral standards. I am not speaking about "their" standards (the media, politicians, the masses)
but of our standards.
As Pope John Paul II remarked ". . .to presume to make one’s own weakness the criterion of
moral truth is unacceptable. From the very first proclamation of the word of Jesus, Christians
realize that there is a "disproportion between the moral law, natural and evangelical, and the human
capacity. They equally understand that the recognition of their own weakness is the necessary and
secure road by which the doors to God’s mercy will be opened. ‘An attitude of this sort corrupts
the morality of society as a whole since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law
in general, . . .and it ends up by confusing all judgements about values.’ Veritatis Splendor n. 104."
(14)
Many different questions deserve better study. Do different cultural and religious traditions influence
the way in which people deal with moral weaknesses? Are Roman Catholics more than Protestants
ready to disobey moral rules without questioning the validity of the rules ? Are Protestants more
prone to lower standards as a consequence of personal failures? How do other Western traditions
affect reaction to moral weaknesses? Answers to the above might help us understand better the
reasons behind the so-called "loss of virtue."
Truth as our Standard
The Pope argues that the current culture "generates scepticism in relation to the very foundations of
knowledge and ethics, and . . . makes it increasingly difficult to grasp clearly the meaning of what
man is, the meaning of his rights and his duties." (15)
Suppose that instead of rebuilding the moral foundations our task would be that of teaching how to
compose classical music piece for piano. Unless we have an objective knowledge of what a piano
is and what we mean by classical music, we can’t even start to make some progress.
The same takes place in our moral struggles. Unless we believe in an objective moral truth, it will be
very hard not only to improve morality, but also to come to an agreement about what constitutes
moral progress. Unfortunately, it is much easier to define what a piano is, than the essence of
morality. Judging by the screeches and disharmonies that you sometimes hear at the symphony halls
I imagine that it is also difficult to come to an agreement on what classical music is. One way not to
come up with morality standards is by opinion surveys. Can you imagine going to the poor sections
of an American city, to "rap country" and ask people what should classical music be?
The head of the Catholic Church wrote Veritatis Splendor with the goal of establishing the first
step needed for a moral "recovery": providing the compass. Knowing what a piano is, however,
and coming up with a reasonable definition of classical music is just one step. Our next task is
understanding the process which will enable someone to compose a good classical piece. Despite
the constraints at the beginning, there is a constant need for freedom, originality and creativity.
Players will have ten fingers, most pianos will have more than 84 keys, and hopefully the melody
will be in tune with the harmony. The same should happen with any effort to influence the practice
of virtue. We might get the definitions right, even written in stone, as the Ten Commandments, but
the most important task is to "compose" a moral life. For Christians that is the purpose of living.
After the release of Veritatis Splendor, some of my brightest unchurched Classical liberal friends
told me that they were concerned that after this encyclical stating that truth is objective, the next
step by the Church was going to be to try to "impose" this truth. They had the same fear that our
good friend Milton Friedman has about those of us who favor the Austrian approach to economics:
"those who think they know the truth are prone to impose it."
Yet this does not need to be the case. Close to the release date of the above encyclical, the Pope
visited Sudan, a largely Muslim country and argued forcefully that majorities do not have the right to
impose their religious and moral views on minorities. The Wanderer, one of the most conservative
Catholic newspaper in the United States, wrote a positive editorial describing the "libertarian" slant
in the recent Vatican positions.
On Not Imposing Our Moral Views by Force
"a worse and more perplexing Difficulty arises, how to be defended against the Governors? Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, from Juvenal)." (16)
The previous section leads me to a second major recommendation: never propose or initiate
coercion on other adults to impose your views of the good.
During a period in its history, the citizens of the United States held basic moral ideas that launched
one of the most liberating periods in the history of civilization. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is perhaps,
after the Pope, the most influential theologian of the Catholic Church. On November 6, 1992, at
the ceremony where he was inducted into the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of the
Institute of France, he explained that a free society can only subsist where people share basic moral
convictions and high moral standards. He further argued for the need for these convictions not to be
"imposed or even arbitrarily defined by external coercion."
Ratzinger found part of the answer in the work of Tocqueville stating that "A. de Tocqueville’s
analysis of Democracy in America has always made a strong impression on me." He added that to
make possible, "an order of liberties in freedom lived in community, the great political thinker
[Tocqueville] saw as an essential condition the fact that a basic moral conviction was alive in
America, one which, nourished by Protestant Christianity, supplied the foundations for institutions
and democratic mechanisms." (17)
A positive trend on this issue is the increased awareness by conservatives of the dangers of using
state powers to achieve their vision of society. This is enforced by the conviction that moral law is
above civil law. That civil law approves and condones a practice does not in any way make that
practice good. A recent ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America admonishing
all citizens to desist opposing the killing of babies in wombs, made orthodox Judaeo-Christians
increasingly aware of the destructive force and arrogance of political power. In his last encyclical,
Pope John Paul II, opposes the view that "in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect
for other people’s freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own
convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by
law; in carrying out one’s duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law
itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal
conscience, at least in the public sphere."(18)
There is a healthy increase of skepticism of political power by conservative thinkers. This
skepticism comes naturally to libertarians. The struggle for morality, however, would be much
easier, if most libertarians understood that freedom is not the highest moral end. It is then than the
increase in the ranks of "men who combine both ethical affirmation and concern for human
freedom," (19) might be big enough to reverse the trends.
Conclusion: the real effects of moral causes are not always immediate; but that which in the first
instance is prejudicial may be excellent in its remoter operation.(20)
We have a difficult task ahead. For more than twenty centuries, the key question asked by
intellectuals was "what is good." Our libraries hold thousands of books written on the subject. The
books are still there, but few are reading them because the practical question today is not any
longer what is moral, but "what is in it for me," or "what is in it for the State."
Some decades ago, Stanton Evans addressed what he considered the chief question of the time:
"Can a regime of political freedom long exist without the underpinning of religion and moral
sentiment derived from Judaeo-Christian revelation?" He answered in the negative. I have not
answered what might be a similar important question in some of your minds. "Can we reclaim our
moral foundations without the underpinning of religion and moral sentiment derived from
Judaeo-Christian revelation?" His answer should be even more negative. I believe that if we would
banish from the earth all traces of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, then our task would be almost
hopeless. But history cannot be reversed. The events which took place in Jerusalem almost 2000
years ago have changed the world forever. Even those who do not share Christian beliefs, such as
those who condemned Him to die in a cross, might be working on God’s behalf so that the
prophecies are fulfilled. It is up to us and those who, without closing their eyes to truth, follow their
conscience according to natural law, to protect and rebuild the moral structure.
I focused on personal change because one cannot give what he does not have. We can barely
change and improve our behavior and yet we want to change others. Those of us who share the
privilege of being parents and the responsibility to manage an office have a bigger chance (and
therefore a responsibility) to influence the life of people. We should make our house and our office
a place where the atmosphere is conducive to personal development. If you are a parent, discuss
frequently with the members of your family about your own conduct. As a manager ask yourself if
you are creating a work environment where people joyfully contribute their creative talents. (21)
Parents have the responsibility to lead their children into authentic freedom but first they have to
educate themselves. As St. Gregory stated "human life is always subject to change; it needs to be
born ever anew . . .; it is the result of a free choice. Thus we are in a certain way our own parents,
creating ourselves as we will, by our own decisions." (22) If we fail in the task of educating
ourselves to be good spouses and parents, our children will bear the consequences. And, as the
future is in their hands, no lasting reform is possible without them.
As Burke noted, some steps that might be needed to recover our moral foundations might indeed
cause short term negative consequences. Families that home-school, or parents who are not
workaholic might see their incomes falling or rising slower than that of their neighbors. It is not
good, nor necessary, to have the best people sometimes receiving the worst compensations. In the
end, however, those who make the correct moral choice, will live happier and better lives. With
their example they might lead those of us who have responsibility over others to create proper
environments for human development.
The late Henry Hazlitt, started his important book on morality (23) with a quote from Arthur
Schopenhauer,
"To preach morality is easy, to give it a foundation is hard."
and I add that to live morality is sublime. It is our highest task: the necessary first step to regain our
moral foundations.
Footnotes
1. Based on notes for a panel at the Philadelphia Society Meeting, April 29, 1995
2On the Revolution in France, (New York: Collier, 1909), p. 320.
3The Abolition of Man, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996) by C.S. Lewis, is a good book for
those approaching this issue from a non-Christian perspective.
4In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo: Frank S. Meyer, (Chicago: Henry Regnery
Company, 1962), p. 3.
5The Virtue of Liberty, Tibor R. Machan, (New York: Foundation for Economic Education,
1994), p. 43.
6The Virtue of Liberty, p. 35. Not all libertarians have the same or any understanding of
metaphysical freedom. Metaphysically speaking, one can be free in a jail, or in a concentration
camp. "What is the use to study such freedoms?" they question.
7Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II, (New York: Knopf, 1994), p. 190.
8Ibid., p. 202.
9Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Mission Hills, CA: Benzinger Publishing Company, 1994)
358.
10Ibid.
11 Disney Corp., I am not criticizing here the right of any community to oppose subsidies, but the
pagan nature of many of their beliefs.
12 Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis, (New York: Collier, 1952), p. 58.
13Antony Fisher, The Case for Freedom, (London: Runnymede Press, 1948), p. 6.
14From "Vademecum for Confessors Concerning some aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life."
L’Osservatore Romano, n. 11, March 1997, p. 10.
15Veritatis Splendor, p. 11.
16A Vindication of Natural Society, Edmund Burke, (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987), p. 67.
17L’Osservatore Romano, N. 6, 10 February 1993, p. 15.
18Evangelium Vitae (69)
19M. Stanton Evans used this phrase in his "Raico on Liberalism and Religion", in The New
Individualist Review, 1964, p. 707.
20Edmund Burke, On the Revolution in France, p. 209.
21 A wonderful book for managers is First Things First: To Live, To Love, To Learn, To Leave a
Legacy by Stephen R. Covey, A. Roger Merrill and Rebecca R. Merrill, (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1994).
22Saint Gregory of Nyssa, De Vita Moysis, II, 2-3:PG 44, 327-328, quoted in Veritatis
Splendor, point 71.
23The Foundations of Morality, New edition by FEE, New York: 1994.