There is a distinction that I’ve always thought was rather apparent but of late it seems like more and more I read people who don’t acknowledge it. So I thought I’d write about my understanding of this distinction in its totality and you can tell me if my understanding is wrong, incomplete, or flawed.
The idea is fairly simple. There is a fundamental difference between saying that a particular action is one that you ought to do and saying that a particular action is something that you are allowed to do. We can have discussions about whether or not some particular behavior ought to be engaged in and we can have discussions about whether or not society ought to allow a particular behavior to be engaged in but those are fundamentally different conversations.
Ought is about what’s morally right, what’s Just, what’s appropriate, what’s good, what’s decent, what’s compassionate, or what results in the best outcomes. Allowed is about what a particular authority makes possible or viable. Usually the authority is the State, but it can also be your boss or your parents or guardians or someone else who you give the ability to determine the bounds of your behavior in a given context.
Why does this distinction matter?
Because it’s important to recognize that these two concepts vary completely independently even when talking about the authority of the State. It’s entirely possible for an action to be one that you ought NOT do but which you are entirely allowed to do and that you ought to be allowed to do. That’s very very common. For example, in my last post I posted a video showing the behavior of protesters protesting a gathering of the ICNA, a muslim group accused of being radically fundamentalist and terrorist supporters, who were meeting to have a dinner to raise money for women’s shelters and to relieve homelessness and hunger in the United States. Now I did not have any kind of point when posting that video. I just wanted to show people how people were acting. However, if I were to have a point, if I had bothered to comment on it my thoughts would have been simply this: Those people ought not be doing that. Protesters are fine and acceptable even when you are protesting something I think doesn’t deserve to be protested. But those protests were simply wrong. They weren’t just voicing their disagreements, they were terrorizing and attacking people, trying to make people, including children feel unwanted, hated, and despised.
I think that behavior is morally wrong. If we’re having a discussion about right and wrong and good and bad things to do I will always 100% be against that type of protest. In fact, I think it’s a very good thing to try and get as many people as possible in the world to have the requisite level of basic human decency to understand that that behavior is unquestionably deplorably wrong.
But if we’re having a conversation about whether they ought to be allowed to engage in that behavior? Well that’s different. I’m equally as adamant that they ought TO be allowed to engage in that protest. Society should not ban it. No government agency should implement any kind of punishment to them for doing it. I think if it’s a moral problem then it’s a moral problem for the people to solve independently from relying upon the force-based authority of the State.
That’s not an uncommon thing. There’s lots of people who think that a lot of things are wrong but should still be allowed. For me that’s actually my default position on the majority of things. I believe that the authority of the State should be pretty narrowly construed. It should only not allow behaviors that are dangerous to civilization itself or that directly interfere with people’s ability to live free or pursue their safety and happiness. So yes you ought not be allowed to murder, rape, torture, or enslave. I think it makes sense for the State to be setup so that it does everything within its power to prevent those things from ever happening. But beyond that there’s literally millions of things I think are wrong but I absolutely want the State to have nothing to do with. I want no authority figure preventing people from doing it. I just want to convince people not to do it.
I’m actually more extreme on this then the current state of the law. For example, I think indecent exposure laws are kinda silly. If someone wants to go outside stark naked I think they should be completely allowed to do that. Then we should have as a society the discussion about whether or not people ought to go outside stark naked. When is appropriate? When is it dangerous?
Likewise even though I completely believe in global warming and I think that one important step toward ending global warming is switching to more efficient resources like cfl and lcd light bulbs, I differ from some 80% of the populace that don’t care if we ban incandescent light bulbs. I thinkpeople ought not use incandescent light bulbs… but I’m pretty leary of the idea of banning them altogether. I think people should be allowed to make and sell and buy incandescent ligh bulbs… I just think nobody should. That’s why to me I would much rather see a solution that raised the price of incandescent light bulbs to be commiserate with the harm caused by their greater energy use and that’s contribution to global warming. Likewise I like the idea of raising people’s awareness of the great benefits of cfl and lcd bulbs which I think is likely to result in people buying them voluntarily and has already been doing so.
That being said if it comes down to the question of the survival of hte human race… well then yeah I’d say that’s a case where it’s ok for the State to use its authority to make it so we aren’t even allowed to purchase inefficient bulbs. I just don’t think we’re quite at that point yet. I think there are other areas where the State should focus its authority to stave off the threat of global warming.
That doesn’t mean I’ll weep the day the incandescent light bulb ban goes into effect. I’m not going to be outh there protesting it. I think it’s wrong… but I also think that it’s just not that significant enough t o be wroth fighting. And while I wouldn’t go so far as to say you ought not protest that ban… I also think there’s a lot better things that you probably could be doing instead.
The other side happens too. There are things that we ought to do that we ought not be allowed to do. Though this side is a lot harder to illustrate because it is a lot less common.
One example requires looking at the narrower view of “allowed” that relies upon the authority of parents. For example, I’d say a young teenager who lives in a very dangerous neighborhood probably ought not be allowed to go out roaming the streats at night. I think that “allowance” makes perfect sense as a rule and it’s one that parents have every right to implement and in the general case should be obeyed.
However… I can concoct many circumstances where a young teenager actually OUGHT to disobey that rule. That is there are cases where even though they aren’t allowed, it’s nevertheless the right thing to do. Take for example, a teenager’s young friend is threatening to commit suicide one night and the teenager is the only one who would be able to talk them out of it but only if they go to them immediately. I’d say then that teenager certainly cannot be said to have done something wrong by going to his or her friend and talking them through their problem and getting them not to kill themselves even though they broke the rule of what is and is not allowed. That’s not to say that sneaking out of the house is necessairly the BEST course of action. IT’s simply a morally acceptable course of action. There might be other actions that are even better, like talking to one’s parents about it if one knows their parents are the kinds of people who would be understanding about it, or calling the police. What is morally UNACCEPTABLE is doing nothing when one knows someone they care about’s life is on the line or using the fact of their “allowance” as an excuse. But it’s a complex situation and of course it’s never entirely certain whether someone might be commiting suicide or how best to react to it., so I’m not trying to be overly judgmental here. My point is only that there could be a circumstance where breaking the rule and sneaking out of the house at night might be morally justifiable without deligitimizing the rule itself.
Likewise we can use an example at a State level. We often have rules as a society to prevent certain protests in certain areas because they become too disruptive to the functioning of the society or they put people at risk. Sometimes I think those ordinances are overly restrictive and we can argue and have debate on how restrictive they should be. BUT I would never argue that no such rule is ever justifiable. I think that you actually OUGHT to have rules about that. There should be certain types of protest that the State shouldn’t allow you to do willy nilly just for the fun of it. Your freedom to protest can impinge upon a great many other people’s freedom and also at the same time put yours and other people’s lives at risk. So it’s fine for the State whose job it is to protect people to have *some* rules about what kinds of protests you are and are not allowed to do.
That being said… I still believe that there is a moral right to protest that exceeds the Rights protected by the State. And I think if there is something that is important enough then you really OUGHT to break those rules about what you are allowed to do and protest anyway. You should engage in civil disobedience if you’re government is becoming a dictatorship or your freedoms are being eroded or your people are being treated like slaves or there is a great inequity or injustice in society .You absolutely OUGHT to protest that. And the form your protest should take sometimes really OUGHT to break the rules of what is allowed. That doesn’t necessarily mean violence. But it could certainly mean going where you aren’t allowed to go and refusing to leave and forcing the police to pick you up bodily and move you. That might mean chaining yourself to the bulldozer or the fence. That might mean covering yourself in oil. That might mean laying down on the ground in the middle of the street. That might mean occupying Tahir Square for weeks on end demadning that your dictator shut down. Those are morally right things to do even though I think it’s also morally appropriate for them to not be allowed under normal circumstances.
Most situations aren’t that simple though. So let’s consider two case studies to better illustrate my point.
Smoking.
Smoking illustrates best how what we know can change our opinions about both what people OUGHT to do and what they OUGHT to be ALLOWED to do.
At some point in the not too distant past we didn’t know the harm of cigarettes and tobacco, nor, one might argue, were they as dangerous as they are today (due to cigarette company manipulation). You might argue that SOME PEOPLE always knew but for the sake of argument let’s say that there was a time when that ignorance was nearly complete and certainly unproven.
During that time then I think we as a society had a default assumption both that you were allowed to smoke AND that it was NOT morally wrong to smoke. Some people may have considered smoking differing degrees of distasteful but most people didn’t think you were fundamentally breaking any moral rule or code by engaging in the act of smoking. You weren’t causing any harm unless you were deliberately doing it to make people around you uncomfortable, but even if you were while that might be very slightly immoral nobody would have ever imagined banning smoking on that basis.
Now our understanding of smoking has changed greatly as have our rules. We now know smoking causes considerable harm to yourself aND to people around you. We also know that supporting cigarette companies means supporting some of the most deceitful and dishonest and immoral companeis to have ever existed. We know that cigarettes were deliberately manufactured to become more addictive and advertised in a deceitful manner in order to deliberately ensare younger people into smoking. And we know that was done by people who KNEW the negative health effects of smoking and who HID that knowledge from the public and tried to obscure and confuse the issue purely for the sake of profit.
Given that… today when we ask whether or not you OUGHT to smoke I think there’s pretty broad moral support to the proposition that the answer is NO. You ought NOT smoke. It’s just not a good thing to do morally.
That doesn’t mean you can’t mitigate the degree to which it is wrong. For example it is less wrong if you smoke by yourself at home then if you smoke in a nursery home filled with babies whose lungs are just developing. It’s LESS wrong if you buy cigarettes from companies that have better track records. And it’s LESS wrong if you smoke less and if you’re trying to quit. And it’s LESS wrong if for whatever reason you have a mental disability that is helped by not smoking. IT’s less wrong if you don’t deliberately blow the smoke out into people’s faces to try and force them to enhale it. It’s less wrong if you don’t liter and throw away the bud.
But note the formulation there. It’s pretty much ALWAYS at least a little wrong. Just sometimes you can make it only minimally wrong and other times it’s downright despicable.
However, when it comes to whether or not it should be allowed well that’s where society is having a hard time drawing the line. Some wnat to ban smoking outright. Others want to create restricted rules as to when it should or should not be allowed. Still others think it’s a personal choice and should always be allowed. I tend to lean toward the middle view which seems to be the one society is coalescing around.
In my opinion, smoking ought to be allowed when it’s being done privately within your own home. You should be allowed to do anything you want to yourself no matter how harmful. we just should as a moral society try to discourage immoral actions of one antoher. But we shouldn’t judge. We ALL do some things that aren’t morally right. I think it’d be a pretty boring world if we didn’t.
When it comes to public places where your smoking potentailly causes harm to others I think the question is harder. I think it makes sense to restrict it in areas where people are vulnerable such as hospitals, nursery homes and schools. I think it also makes sense for the State to set an example by banning it in places like court rooms and legislative buildings. I think it makes less sense to ban it in very large radiuses around all public facilities or all parks. I think it makes less sense to ban it in public restaurants (not kids restaurants) and hotels in dedicated smoking sections. And I think it makes even less sense to ban it in places like bars, strip joints, and casinos wehre there is sort of an expectation of smoking especially if they also have dedicated smoking and non-smoking areas.
That doesn’t mean I would be super opposed to rules banning smoking in those areas too. It just means that I think the argument for banning it in those areas is a lot less strong. People have a reasonable degree of right to cause harm to themselves AND each other when they are willing knowing aware adults . As long as it doesn’t become the case where a person who does NOT want to be exposed to smoking has NO options then I think the law can be as loose as possible.
So that’s smoking. How about something more controversial.
Abortion.
Abortion is another complex issue when it comes to both morality and authority and it’s certainly very unsettled. Certainly many people will disagree with my assessment but my understanding of right and wrong with regard to abortion deeply revolves around these issues of allowance and morality together with what we know and don’t know and what’s knowable and not knowable. Here’s my take on it. I think abortion basically falls into four categories.
1. Very early.
Super early on, as in the time period when it can be argued that no real “pregnancy” has occurred and we start having debates about whether a certain procedure or pill counts as an “abortion” or simply as a contraceptive… during that period I am very certain of my opinion on both fronts. I think whether you call it abortion or something else… causing that collection of cells deliberately or accidentally to not develop into a living human beings is totally both NOT morally wrong AND totally ought to be ALLOWED. And I think in a lot of cases where you are uncertain about whether you can raise the child well or if there are medical reasons to believe there would be great risks in carriyng a pregnancy to term, I can even say thaI think you probably OUGHT to get an abortion. I think there are cases where getting an abortion is totally the right thing to do.
2. Very late.
Super late in a pregnancy, say just before the child is about to be born… and indeed in a situation in the early time just after pregnancy I’m pretty sure that the reverse is true. Whatever else can be said about ending the life of a child under those circumstances I think you certainly cannot say that it is morally RIGHT to do it. And I think as a society it basically makes pefect sense to make that not something you are ALLOWED to do except under very rare extraordinary circumstances and even then not based on your own authority and will.
I can maybe concoct a story complex enough and a sob story deep enough that it might make you say ok let the person have that abortion on the day before the child was born… but it would have to be one helluva story. I think intuitvely it makes sense for society to make an assumption that at some point that collection of cells has promoted to an equal rights human being and I don’t think that point is at the point of birth. I think it happens somewhat before birth.
That being said I do think we need more mechanisms to allow children that are forced to be born under those circumstances can be assured to live a decent life.
3. Early.
Early on but beyond the point where we are arguing about whehter ro not that particular collection of cells has any chance of developing into a human being, but well before there’s any hope whatsoever of that collection of cells survivng outside of the mother without enormous intervention, then my opinion changes. I still am mostly convinced that you ought be ALLOWED to get an abortion. I have zero doubts about that. I don’t think you should be forced to preserve the growth of a potential entity that is wholly dependent on you. But as to whether or not it’s something you OUGHT to do morally I think that’s a harder question. I can’t say with a certainty that it’s NOT wrong nor can I say with a certainty that it’s NOT right. I think the jury is still out on it. I’m not at all smart enough to say which is which. So in short, my answer is I don’t know what’s right. But I’m positive it should be allowed no matter what its moral status is becuase there are far too many circumstnaces where I think forcing the child to be born is more morally wrong than the abortion might be.
4. Late.
And likewise my position reverses when we’re talking about a fetus that isn’t fully developed but that we can say has a decent chance of continued survival and growth outside of the womb. given current technology. Here, I think again I’m pretty sure we can probably say that it’s not morally right to have an abortion. The only real question is whether or not carrying the child to term might be MORE morally wrong. And I can think of many situations where I think it very easily could be more morally wrong to do so. I think things have to be taken into account like the life of the mother, rape, incest, the chances oft he child’s survival, and what kind of life the child is likely to lead. But I think even if the grave decision to terminate the pregnancy is made… I don’t think it should be done lightly or trivially. I don’t think we should pretend that something bad didn’t happen.
On the other hand… when talking about what society ought to allow in late abortions I am not sure at all. I think sometimes they should be allowed and I think sometimes it might make sense to restrict them or to create control or limitations to make it more difficult. But they have to be RATIONAL controls and just and fair ones. They can’t be insulting guilt trips designed to manipualte and guilt trip women into not getting an abortion.Tthat’s wrong. IF that’s the only option people can come up with… then I’d rather just make it 100% allowed then to have society treat people that. But I think we do have a reasonable system in most States that restricts abortions in the third trimester except in cases of rape, incest, or for the life of the mother. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable compromise, provided you trust people to make those determinations fairly. And I think as knowledge and understanding and opiniosn change the nature of that compromise can shift and change over time and that’s fine. I just don’t believe there is an easy certainty abotu what ought and ought not be allowed by the State under those circumstances. You have to balance the rights of the mother against the rights of the fetus. I don’t think that’s easy. But I reject the easy overy simplistic answers about how best to draw those lines.
The point of all of this is simply to illustrate that questions of how we should order society wtih regard to allowance and disallowance are very different questions than questions about how we should as individuals choose to behave. Indeed, one of my main beefs with a lot of fundamentalist religions is their tendency to what to obscure or eliminate the differences between these two questions. They have a tendency to want the State to enforce ONLY their particular vision of what people ought or ought not do in their daily lives.
And that has huge implications when it comes to questions with regard to our basic freedoms. I think thoes freedoms are deemed “basic” because they represent the minimal degree to which the State ought to protest our ability to behave in certain ways. We need to be allowed to assemble, to gather, to speak our mind, to have a free press, and to practice religion no matter what. That’s really important and should never be broken simply because someone or some group decides that the way in which you exercise that right is morally wrong.
But that doesn’t mean we should *ignore* questions about moral rightness. On the contrary I think that’s what hte public sphere of debate is FOR. We argue and complain about whether each other’s behaviors are morally “right”. We criticize each other and mock one another when we do wrong things and praise each other and clap each others on the back when we think that what we’re doing is right. And I think we HAVE to do that. I think it’s incredibly important that when we see reprehensible behavior we feel no fear about POINTING IT OUT. It’s the silence of well meaning people that allows atrocities to happen.
But the way in which you go about pointing that out may well be constitutionally protected but that does not mean it’s inherently immune to any form of moral critique. If you criticize someone, they have a right to criticize back and nobody should sling around and pretend that because of those critiques someones fundamental rights are somehow being abridged. That last is just a childish attempt to intimidate people into letting you say and do whatever you want whenever you want without being criticized or questioned or challenged on it. And that too is, in my humble opinion, very very wrong.
Though of course you’re still allowed to do it.
