So, here's my thought process lately. Is setting up government programs to help people moral? Maybe, on the part of the politician, but certainly not for the rest of us. How can I say that? Let me explain. I agree with modern liberals that morality is a personal choice (in theory). God is the ultimate authority and His word rules my thinking, so you can account for that if you like. However, I don't believe the Bible is ever telling us to establish a government to take care of people. We are constantly admonished however to help others, especially widows and orphans (is it any wonder that the largest group of impoverished people in this country are single mothers?). So, the argument is that working together we can effect greater moral good for society and that the government is the only agent capable of doing so. I don't buy it. Here's why. In order to have moral value, an act must come with a choice. An individual must choose to commit a moral act. When we pay our taxes, we are doing as God has told us to respect authority and give to Caesar. Therefore, paying taxes is what we are supposed to do. It is what we are all supposed to do. There is no moral authority in paying taxes. If an act is something that everyone must do regardless of their opinions, belief, conscience, etc., then they are simply doing what we all must do. Where is the morality in that? So, a government program might be morally justified in the eyes of society, but it becomes amoral when placed in the hands of the government. Perhaps even immoral depending on the moral standing you give to the concept of liberty. At best, a government program is moral for the Congress member who wrote the bill and maybe for the ones who voted for it, because they are making a choice in supporting it. However, they are also making that choice for you as well. Moral?
I return to my statement that a moral act must accompany a choice. Therefore, only an individual or a group of individuals acting in concert can commit a moral act. Is it moral for me to see my neighbor suffering and say to myself (there is a government program to help him, so he should take advantage of it) and then do nothing or is it moral for me to see my neighbor suffering and do all I can to help? The first example to me is cowardly and self-centered. It is the me philosophy that gets the religious man to walk on the other side of the road while the second example is more in line with the principle expressed by the good Samaritan. Of course, I'll be accused of saying that by not voting for people who will support government programs, I am the one walking on the other side of the road. To this I respond that it is only the person who puts their money where their mouth is that can commit a moral act. Voting for or against someone guarantees nothing. Creating a government program that invariably will work to less effect than intended and will ultimately have negative "unintended consequences" is not a moral act either. God will value a person who goes out and feeds the hungry and goes out and clothes the naked and goes out and helps the disabled and goes out and gives to the poor. These are all personal moral choices made by individuals or groups of like minded individuals (not governments). To pay your taxes and yet do none of these things because you expect the government to "care" for others is a self-centered act, not a moral one. It goes directly against what I believe God wants. Yes, we are to treat everyone with respect and dignity and yes, we are to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, help the widows and orphans, etc. etc. However, expecting the government to do any of this while not doing it ourselves removes any moral authority from the argument. The tax returns of our leaders generally suggest that a lot of them believe this is the role of government. I do not agree. The man who pays his taxes and his tithe (money, time, etc.) has moral authority while the man who pays his taxes and does not provide money or time to charity has none. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment