Morals and the Free Society: 4. The Moral Contradiction of the Free Society

Here is the fourth chunk of the argument. To return to the third chunk, click here. To advance to the fifth chunk, click here. The complete essay is posted here.


We have arrived at a peculiar situation. For the free market to exist at all requires that people adhere to certain moral principles that constrain their pursuit of their own utility, such as respect for property rights and the principle of noncoercion. And these minimal principles aren’t sufficient for a perfectly efficient free market (one that satisfies the conditions for perfect competition), only for a modestly efficient free market. Of course, no market will exhibit perfect efficiency, but efficiency will improve the more open, honest, probative, loyal, forthcoming, fair-minded, and so forth that people are, again at the expense of their pursuit of their own utility. And this generates the apparent paradox that people must be community-spirited in order to set the stage for them to be selfish!

So, what is the message here? Are people supposed to be egoists or not? In the purely competitive market, people are supposed to follow only one principle: egoistic utility maximization. But for such a market to exist, even approximately, people have to follow certain “moral” principles—principles of good behavior distinct from egoistic utility maximization and that often conflicts with egoistic utility maximization.

To be clear: The problem is not that the free society seems to require two different sorts of moral principles. It’s that the different sorts of moral principles conflict, and no rationale is provided for resolving the conflict. We have seen that the egoistic utility maximizer has no reason to forego his own utility to promote an efficient free market (or any free market) where this can be avoided. On the flip side, it’s at least ironic to insist on “moral” rules to create an egoistic free-for-all. Why should people care about nonegoistic constraints on the pursuit of their own utility if their observance is only in the service of egoism?

That a social order should require devotion to principles that sometimes require individuals to restrain their pursuit of their own utility is hardly very surprising or problematic. It’s the mixed message that is the problem. It’s that we demand that people care about the rights of others and simultaneously embrace as their moral vision egoistic utility maximization. On the one hand, we’re supposed to care about community-spirited values; on the other hand, we’re supposed to care only about our own benefit. The problem is to reconcile these two directives.

Donald Heath, RIP

Some of you may have known Donald Heath from his days as Director of Operations for David Kelley’s Institute for Objectivist Studies (IOS). As you probably know by now, Donald passed away this past Friday of a heart attack; he was 56. I didn’t know Don very well, and hadn’t interacted with him since my last interactions with IOS in the mid 1990s, but he was one of my favorite people at IOS, and I have fond memories of him. This obituary by David Kelley gets it right.

From West Philly to Gulshan-e-Iqbal and Back

I was in Philadelphia this weekend, visiting with my friends Sinan and Amy. Sinan was my ‘handler’ at Al Quds University this past summer and the time before; he handles the logistics there that I can’t. Amy is a nice Midwestern gal from Texas (go figure). They met a few years ago in Bethlehem, Sinan’s home town, recently emigrated to Philadelphia, got an apartment, got married, and settled in. They cooked me (well, really Sinan cooked us) a sumptuous dinner of maqluba followed by Palestinian coffee and pastries. We had dessert on a couch in front of a window that looks west and frames West Philadelphia. The window lets out onto a big ledge with just enough room for the two of them to sip wine and watch the sunset.

Continue reading

The Joys of Teaching, The Joys of Learning

An indication of what I have to put up with on a daily basis. And don’t think that the Brussels attack made the material “relevant” to anyone. Brussels? What’s “Brussels”? Anything to do with brussels sprouts? (Well,  yes, as it turns out.)

It reminds me of the time we were studying Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow one semester in the same course. I stood in front of 35 blank faces, dragging them through the material. Finally, seventy-five minutes later, another frustrating class had come to its doleful end. The class filed out in relief, except for one irritated student, who walked up to me with an odd look on her face. Finally, the dam broke, and she burst out with: “Professor, what the fuck is ‘Jim Crow’? And why does this lady not like white people?” I’m happy to report that I was able to answer one of those questions to her satisfaction.

Best Voice Mail Ever

Hi Mr. Khawaja, this is Lieutenant Spatola from the Detective Bureau at Bloomfield Police Department. We wanted to advise you that we did make an arrest on the package theft you recently reported. The individual in question has confessed to about eight other thefts in the neighborhood. If you need any documentation or reports, you can just stop in at our headquarters. Thank you.

I initially thought it was an exercise in futility to report the theft, on the grounds that I couldn’t imagine their ever catching the thief. But I did the citizenly thing and reported it anyway. I’m glad I did. After thinking about it a bit, I eventually figured out how they caught the guy, but since I don’t want to reveal sources and methods, my lips are sealed, except to say: Elementary, my dear Watson.

Continue reading

Morals and the Free Society: 3. Morals That Create the Free Market

Here is the third chunk of the argument. To return to the second chunk, click here. To advance to the fourth chunk, click here. The complete essay is posted here.


Of course, this moral vision of pure egoistic utility maximization applies only within a perfectly free market. This means the free society’s members must abide by the rules whose observance brings the free market into being in the first place. The free market depends on the observance of clearly defined property rights, for example, as well as on the observance of rules against direct coercion. But observing these rules is not always utility maximizing. Notwithstanding the many cogent reasons that have been advanced to show why coercive and rights-violating behavior is often not in the agent’s utility-maximizing self-interest, it seems clear that there are still many situations in which such behavior is utility maximizing. Thus, if the free market is to exist, agents must abide by its rules at the expense of their own utility maximization. And these rules—against fraud, theft, and murder, for example—are clearly moral rules. So the free market requires obedience to a certain set of moral rules—namely, the moral rules that establish the free market—that are distinct and apparently not derivable from the morality of egoistic utility maximization.

Continue reading

IPOD “INTRODUCTION” (PP. 1-16)

Irfan and I have had a bit of a reading project going.  We have been reading through Nomy Arpaly and Tim Schroeder’s IN PRAISE OF DESIRE (affectionately, “IPOD”).  I’m going to post some chapter or section summary/commentary here that is meant to more or less stand on its own (this helps me condense the material into clear essentials).  It is also meant as an invitation to read the book, or sections of it, and “get into the weeds” with us.  So here is (selective) summary/commentary for the IPOD Introduction (which, unlike many introductions, is substantive).

Continue reading

Morals and the Free Society: 2. Is the Perfectly Free Market a “Morally Free Zone”?

Here is the second chunk of the argument. To return to the first chunk, click here. To advance to the third chunk, click here. The complete essay is posted here.


A somewhat different and even stronger version of the claim that a free—or at least ideally free—society does not impose morals is given by David Gauthier in Morals by Agreement (1986, ch. 4). Gauthier goes further than the mere claim of toleration and argues that the free market, wherever it works with perfect efficiency, is a “morally free zone,” meaning that morality is neither needed nor even desirable! In such a social context, instrumental rationality is a sufficient guide to life, and it is the only proper guide: any other principle must only damage people’s lives. Thus, in an ideally free society, morals actually have no place!

Continue reading