Anti-Libertarianism: Markets, Philosophy and Myth by Alan Haworth

Author:Alan Haworth [Haworth, Alan]
Language: eng
Format: epub, pdf
Tags: Philosophy, Political, Libertarianism, Capitalism, Ethics and Moral Philosophy, Non-Fiction, Economics, Business
ISBN: 9780415082532
Google: M6wOAAAAQAAJ
Amazon: 0415082544
Goodreads: 21859079
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 1994-08-17T23:00:00+00:00

2. RIGHTS AND FENCES

2.1. What the Samaritan didn‘t do

The parable of the Good Samaritan also draws upon, and conjures up, some fairly powerful moral feelings (or ‘intuitions’). As a way of getting to grips with the libertarian account, let us first remind ourselves of what the Samaritan did before turning to the more interesting question of what he didn’t do. Let me add (quickly) that I am not trying to push a sermon here or to found an argument on an appeal to religion. The point is simply that the parable of the Good Samaritan – like the core anti-consequentialist argument – relies for its appeal upon a moral ‘intuition’ which is hardly arbitrary.

But I shall return to that. First, I think it safe to assume that pretty well all readers will be aware that the story relates to a certain man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves, ‘which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead Unlike the priest and the Levite in the story, who both ‘passed by on the other side’, the Samaritan had compassion on the victim, went to him, and bound up his wounds. He ‘set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him The following morning, the Samaritan departed only after having first made sure that the victim’s immediate needs could be financially provided for at the inn. These needs were apparently quite modest. (‘He took out two pence)3

Now, it seems to me that the moral which it is most natural to draw from this story concerns two of its features in particular. There is, first, the fact that the thieves’ victim is in a pretty bad way; ‘half dead’ no less. The Samaritan does not give a handout to help finance some whim or luxury. ( Pace an argument to which we shall be turning shortly, he does not deploy his undoubted skills as a hairdresser to supply the man in the ditch with a free haircut.) He caters to a desperate, immediate and evident need. Second, the Samaritan does nothing saintly or superogatory. For example, he does not rescue the man from a blazing building on the point of collapse, or dive into a stormy sea. In no way does he put himself at risk and nor, for that matter, is there any evidence in the story to suggest that the Samaritan has a pressing engagement of his own to keep, any appointment which it would be to his detriment to miss. In the light of these features, the natural moral to draw is that the Samaritan simply does what is expected of him. Whereas the priest and Levite are to blame for passing by, the Samaritan acts as any ordinary person ordinarily ought to in the situation described; and that, indeed, is the moral we are invited to draw. Christ’s question to the disciples is, ‘Which now of these three, thinkest thou,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.