| Back in my review of Chapter 8 of The Ethics Of Liberty, I brought up the point that individualism and socialism are two absolutes, and there exists a spectrum between them that examples of social organization might occupy. Any given social organization might be one absolute or the other, or it might occupy a point between the two. Can this be justified from an ethical perspective? Yes, taking either absolute as a starting point. Can starting somewhere other than an absolute be justified? No, it cannot. | 自由の倫理の第八章の復習で、拙者が個人主義と社会主義の極点の間に社会制度の例があちこちあると書いた。そのあらゆる制度が一方の極点か、他方の極点か、その中のどこかの位置をにある。倫理的に正当化できるか？どちらの極点を原点にしてから、そうできる。極点でない原点を正当化できるか？いな、それはできない。 |
| Starting from individualism, if every individual agrees to abide by a pure socialism, then that socialism is just, because every individual consents to it. Starting from socialism, if Society decides to enact a pure individualism, then that individualism is just, because it is Society’s will that it be enacted. The likelihood of these outcomes may be small, but they are possible, so deserving of mention in an ethical theory. | 個人主義の原点から、個人全人が社会制度に承知すれば、個人全人が賛成したからその社会制度が正当でござる。社会主義の原点から、「社会」が純粋な個人制度を建つと決めたら、社会の意思であることでその個人制度が正当でござる。その結果の確立が低くても、可能だから倫理の論では認めざるを得ない。 |
| However, the ethical theory cannot start from any other position coherently. It would be an oversimplification to say, “The ethic should start at the midpoint, a 50-50 split,” even leaving aside the point that you need to first justify that proportion, as contrasted with any other proportion. That could mean any number of things: one gender is individualist, where the other is socialist; one hemisphere is individualist, where the other is socialist; 50% of all resources produced are individually owned, the remainder are socially owned; and so on. If everything once allocated to individual or social control remained so allocated forever, what happens if, over time, one side maintains and increases its resources, while the other squanders and depletes its resources? | だが、理路整然と別の極点に倫理の論が基づけない。「中央の点、どちら五分五分から倫理が始まるべきだ」と言うのはその割合の正当化の必要を置いても過度に単純化でござる。いくつかの意味になる：「一方の性が個人主義化、他方の性が社会主義化」、「一方の半球が個人主義化、他方の半球が社会主義化」、「生産されたものの全ての半分が個人主義的に制した、その残りが社会主義的に制した」、とか。あるものが個人主義化にされたか、社会主義化にされたか、永久にそう続けたら、時間がたつと一方が資源を維持して増加するの他方に資源を浪費して枯渇すれば、どうなる？ |
| Finding a starting point, by itself, would be an incredibly complex endeavor. The starting point, itself, would be an incredibly complex point. And any number of ethicists who independently attempted to choose a starting point could hardly expect to land upon the same one. Indeed, even if a great number so attempted it, mostly likely none of the starting points would comport with any other. Even if they could be coherently analyzed (which may not be possible) and a number of factors found to be common (which may not hold true), taking those together as a starting point is no basis for any philosophy, because philosophies are disciplines that seeks truth through reasoning, not through empirical survey, not even a survey of philosophers’ ideas. | 原点を見つけること自体がすごく複雑なことになる。原点自体もすごく複雑な点になる。幾人ものの倫理者が独立的に原点を選ぼうとすれば同じ点に着くなんて期待できない。いかにも、大数の選びになっても同じ点の二例が現れないのを予期できる。分析できても（不可能かも知らない）、いくつかの共通点があっても（ないかも知らない）、合体して原点を決めるのは哲学の矛盾になる。哲学は理性で真実を求める学問でござる。哲学者の意見でも実証的のものは哲学に関係しない。 |
| For this reason, attempting to start at any point but pure individualism or pure socialism is an invalid philosophical choice. | この理由で、純粋な個人主義または純粋な社会主義から始まらない倫理は哲学的に根拠のない倫理でござる。 |
The Spectrum of Ethics
Bookmark the permalink.