While running on the Florida State University campus I ran over a chalked advertisement for the Young Republicans. The ad began with a paraphrase of Goldwater’s famous quote: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
After seeing this, I thought about it for the next six miles. Like most runners, I find that I think I think best when running. This blog post will provide an interesting test of that thought.
On the face of it, the claims made in the quote seem to be in error by definition. After all, extremism seems to entail going beyond what is actually needed to defend something and that justice, by its very nature, requires a balance between excess and deficiency.
To use an analogy, imagine a doctor who said “I would remind you that excessive medication in the defense of health is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of well being is no virtue!”
Obviously, excessive medication would be (by definition) too much and hence injurious rather than beneficial to health. As such, this claim would be in error. In the case of well being Aristotle seems to have established quite well that moderation (avoiding excess and deficiency) are the key to well being.
As such, while the claims might have a rhetorical o dramatic appeal they seem to be fundamentally in error.
It could, of course, be replied that I am begging the question against Goldwater by taking “extremism” as being on par with “excessive” and taking moderation to be the mean between excess and deficiency. It could be contended that Goldwater means something else by these terms. To be specific, the extremism he is referring to could be taken as what is seen as being extreme but is, in fact, just what is needed to defend liberty. In the case of moderation, he is not talking about the mean but rather by being a political moderate and willing to compromise and take a middle ground.
Interpreted in this way, what he would seem to be saying is something like “I would remind you that doing what it really takes to defend liberty, even though it might seem extreme to some, is no vice! And let me remind you also that taking the middle ground and compromising too much in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” This seems reasonable enough.
Interestingly, if the quote is taken literally, then he seems to be simply wrong. Extremism is going beyond what is needed and moderation (neither excess nor deficiency) is what is required by justice (otherwise it is not just). If the quote is taken less literally, then it merely amounts to a rhetorical way of saying something that is true but not particularly controversial or interesting.
As a final point, I have noticed that people often use this quote in an “argument by quote/slogan” in an attempt to justify what actually are extreme and immoderate policies and rhetoric. Of course, merely quoting someone hardly serves to prove a claim (although it can be taken as an argument from authority)-though some folks seem to think that this does so with finality.
This statement was not meant as a logical proposition, but as an echo of the Founders, who used such language frequently.
Alas, far too many Americans have abandoned the Founders’ vision of liberty and seek to trade it for the false security of big government.
True. Most of us no longer see owning slaves as part of liberty. 🙂
So I guess we are morally superior to the Founders? How convenient. But then again, the Founders did not have the machines that we have today…the machines are our slaves.
The rules of modern society are morally superior; I’m not sure I would extend that to the membership itself — unless the morality of the people is the same as the morality of the laws.
“…the machines are our slaves.”
Do you think there’ll be a Robot Rights movement down the road?
Yes, I would say that in this respect those of us who are against owning other people do have a moral edge. In fact, I will say unequivocally that I am morally superior to slave owners. To be fair, of course, some of the Founders struggled with the moral inconsistency involved in advocating liberty while tolerating slavery.
The machines are not slaves-they are not people nor even intelligent beings. Hence, they cannot be enslaved.
“Yes, I would say that in this respect those of us who are against owning other people do have a moral edge. In fact, I will say unequivocally that I am morally superior to slave owners.”
This analysis is entirely too facile, and does not do justice to the complexity of the situation. The question, which is impossible to answer, is what you would have done if you lived in Mississippi in the 18th century. Keep your slaves and, as a rich man, work toward the freedom of all people? Give up your slaves and become a dirt farmer?
Well, because of my inherent superiority to slaves, in that I OWNED them, I’d work toward their freedom’ in what has become known as the American way. We Americans have a deep, abiding faith in the premise that when and if the need arises, new ideas/ inventions will save the day. As the superior being, I would use my innate intelligence. native creativity and entrepreneurial skills , qualities we Americans are known for, to develop a business model that would succeed with the limited tools at hand . .Then I would hire any of my former slaves who wished to join me in the enterprise.
But it’s so much easier to own a human.
Slaves were not considered to be people or even intelligent beings and serve our will. Those things are like machines. Machines are not considered to be people or intelligent beings and serve our will. That is what we bought them for.
It could. . .just could. . .be that Goldwater was trying to have it both ways to appeal to two different audiences. The ‘literal’ interpretation as you’ve explained it would appeal, most likely, to the extremists among his base. He may have intended that. The ‘less literal’ version would appeal to those in his party who occasionally need to be reminded of the “not particularly controversial or interesting”.
Or it could be that he was just trying to wind up his audience, with little or no concern for any possible dangerous responses that the words might engender in the rough-edged minds of those on the fringe.
Your reference to Aristotle is interesting, since he would say that only just acts have a mean. Perhaps what Goldwater meant is that liberty and justice are ideals that must be pursued absolutely, since failing to do so would be unjust. In other words, a choice of alternatives, not a mean between extremes. By contrast, medicine is something that has a mean. Goldwater could say that you’re making a false analogy.
Of course, the rhetorical language isn’t acceptable to academics, but we rarely get nominated to run for president.
“Perhaps what Goldwater meant is that liberty and justice are ideals that must be pursued absolutely, since failing to do so would be unjust. In other words, a choice of alternatives, not a mean between extremes.”
It does seem that justice and injustice come in degrees, and that an increase in one entails a decrease in the other. As you say, this implies that justice should be pursued absolutely.
At the theoretical level, then, Justice is an extreme.
However, there is a practical level as well; there is no justice save through actions that are just, and it seems that such actions must always represent a mean. Example: In business, it is just that I promote and demote people according to their merit. It is an injustice to others if I promote someone beyond their merit, and an injustice to the person if I demote them below it; thus, in application, justice cannot be achieved through an extreme, e.g. unmitigated promotion or demotion.
Hence, at the practical level, Justice is a mean.
Silly me, I should have read your comment more closely; it seems that we’re in agreement on this point.
“I would remind you that doing what it really takes to defend liberty, even though it might seem extreme to some, is no vice! And let me remind you also that taking the middle ground and compromising too much in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
While I agree that this is more correct and probably in line with what he was attempting to communicate, I also might argue that taken literally what he said was also correct, just not as incorruptible. He did say “in defense of liberty” and liberty being an ideal cannot be corrupted when defending it. If you go too far in the extreme, as some would take his statement to be, you have violated that ideal and are no longer a defender. What I think those who object to this statement are hearing is more along the lines of “Extremism in the NAME of liberty is no vice”, etc. That would be problematic.
“He did say “in defense of liberty” and liberty being an ideal cannot be corrupted when defending it.”
The danger isn’t from acts that actually defend liberty, it’s from acts that intend to defend liberty but go overboard and cause its opposite.
Exhorting people to ‘defend liberty’ without clarity as to what does and does not constitute an actual defense of liberty is how you get the latter of the above cases.
When the end is good, the difference between good and evil is the means used to achieve it. Evil done in the name of good is good in name only.
Clarity. You’re quite right. Standing in front of a crowd, punching the air with your AK-47, shouting ‘Defend liberty. Follow me!’ without providing modifying clauses that clearly define and defend the reason(s) for the call to arms is little more than incitement to riot. No one but the Jared Loughners of the world should respond to such a cry.
“And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”
So, the vote didn’t rid us of Harry Reid. There hasn’t been much sign in the first month that “the Harry Reid problems”, whatever they are/were, will be cured by the new guys on the block in either chamber.
What ARE we to do?
Allow me to make a suggestion. Give the constitutional process(which can sometimes be long and slow and sometimes doesn’t go OUR way) created by our Founders a chance to function and succeed.
Or we could get right down to those “Second Amendment remedies” in defense of our “liberties”?
We could reassess our sense of proportion. Let’s not be t swatting flies with a cement block. We’ve got some huge current and mid-term choices to make about the path this country is going to take. Let’s be certain we have a firm grip on reality before we are too far along that path.