Equality or Liberty: How the Definition of “Good” Matters for Societies

            Ancient philosophers wrestled with timeless questions concerning which political regime sufficiently guided citizens toward their proper telos. In Greek, this word can be defined as the inherent purpose that a person or object must come to. However, to answer those questions, the philosopher had to first ask, “what is the natural end that all men must come to?” This is precisely because the flourishing of a community rested upon what was evidently “good” in nature. In turn, this reflection of good would bring healthy social relations among the people. Modern citizens struggle with this idea, predominantly because they have fallen into the philosophical trap of postmodernism. But if we are to correctly gauge justice in society, we must begin with mankind and what is good for them. When a society fails to grasp and define a standard that exists for healthy flourishing, division and strife conquers its heart and habits. A standard does exist, and the habits of citizens are such that a proper telos brings liberty instead of licentiousness, responsibility instead of dependency, and neighborly love instead of material love.
            Let us take two philosophers who argued for the idea of good: Plato and Aristotle. Though both men were not Christians, the imago Dei was so evident in their philosophy that they could not deny its existence. Plato, in his cave allegory of the Republic, submits that “in the knowable the last thing to be seen … is the idea of the good; but once seen, it must be concluded that this is in fact the cause of all that is right and fair in everything;” the soul of man, however, in its whole “must be turned around from that which is coming into being together with the whole soul until it is able to endure looking at that which is and the brightest part of that which is.” [1] If you are not familiar with the allegory, imagine being shackled as a prisoner in a cave, unable to see the light that one would see if they were to step outside. Instead, all you see are the shadows of passerby figures that are projected on the cave’s wall. Then, one day you are freed from those shackles and brought out from the mouth of the cave where you can see the reality of those figures because the light has opened your eyes. In other words, the prisoner sees the form (or light) that produces understanding, which is good.
            Aristotle, although he critiqued much of the Republic, agreed that there exists a standard that is natural. He argued that good is “that for the sake of which everything else is done.” [2] It can be easily understood as a consequential effect that every good thing continues pointing to; thus, there is an “end” to which all other goods converge upon, reaching their end in the “superabundance of goods” that is sufficient and needs nothing to complete it. [3] Politically speaking, and biblically speaking for that matter, the community which reaches its telos is the city, and that “while coming into being for the sake of living, it exists for the sake of living well.” [4] God makes it clear in His revelated Word that societies were formed in a fallen world for a primary purpose: to establish justice under the Moral Law. The Noahic Covenant instituted in Genesis 9 has not been done away with and is at the sovereign directive of God. Specifically, for the shedding of man’s blood, “By man his blood shall be shed” (v. 6a). And we know it has not been done away with because Romans 13:4 reveals to us that government authority is a servant of God for our good, “for it does not bear the sword for nothing.”
            Because that standard exists, and because it exists beyond ourselves in our Lord, properly ordering our lives provides freedom and liberty. However, this liberty does not give us the option to live licentiously. Alexis de Tocqueville, the famed Frenchman who did not know Christ personally, describes two kinds of liberty: a liberty of “corrupt nature” and a “civil, a moral, a federal liberty.” [5] The former is inconsistent with authority, “impatient of all restraint” and given to personal license; the latter (the better option) is “the proper end and object of authority … which is just and good; for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives.” [6] True liberty allows for restraint, and it orders our lives in such a way that we are free to do whatever we want within the proper boundaries.
            To this end, liberty is more important than equality. This was the danger Tocqueville warned against, for he saw the advancement of “equality of conditions” as a “gradual” and “providential fact.” [7] The question must be asked why? Plainly put, men who desire equality of conditions generally mean the equality of material conditions, or the gain of material property and wealth. And due to this fact, men would rather find themselves comfortable with “general apathy” for the problems that their communities face, which is “the fruit of individualism.” [8] In fact, it is this fear of material discomfort that produces a passion for “public tranquility” that “emanates as the sole political passion that these peoples preserve.” [9] Much has been said about this topic as it relates to the rise of progressivism and “social welfare.” But as this one singular passion increases, every other one slowly weakens until death, “naturally [disposing] citizens to constantly give the central power new rights, or [allowing] it to take them.” [10] Therefore, as men become settled to this habitual nature, the spirit of the city that has long been held as a proper telos is replaced with a devilish one -- one that is revealing its true colors in modern society. That new spirit is the one a child expresses. It is dependent, and it makes citizens believe they are incapable of conducting their own affairs, submitting them to the power that they presume will care for them as a parent and nanny. [11]
            If we take the adage that “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” we ought not stand for the very thing that has ruined societies throughout history: unrestrained power. If it is true that the people have been given authority, then we must begin to take hold of the appropriate mores that are necessary for living freely and avoid the general apathy of individualism that will instead enslave Americans to an inappropriate telos. We must learn, once again, how it is we are to live freely. For neither apathy nor despotism “can found anything lasting … They rise because nothing can resist them, and they fall because nothing sustains them.” [12]
 
[1] Plato, Republic, trans. Allan Bloom (New York: Basic Books, 1968), 517b-518d.
[2] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins (Chicago: University of Chicago press, 2011), 1097a 18-19.
[3] Ibid., 1097a 26-36, 1097b 19.
[4] Aristotle, Politics, trans. Carnes Lord (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984, 2013), 1252b 28-30.
[5] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 42.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 6.
[8] Ibid., 704.
[9] Ibid., 643-644. 
[10] Ibid., 644.
[11] Ibid., 665.
[12] Ibid., 704.
 
Matthew Ferri

---