自由主義是哲學家John Rawls提出﹐在七十年代興起至今差不多半個世紀﹐一直深受是西方左派社運份子喜愛。他不滿意功用主義與傳統道德理論差太遠﹐可是另一邊廂的道德直覺主義又是一盤散沙﹐有很多互相衡突的道德金科玉律﹐沒有完整系統去制定社會政策﹐於是提出新自由主義填補這個空缺。新自由主義有兩大教條分別是﹕

1. 一個公義的社會就是公平的社會﹐每個人的基本人權﹐利益受到保障。這項教條本身沒有什麼爭議性﹐與古典自由主義的思想一脈相成﹐第二項教條可是破天荒的新理論﹐改變西方政治理論的討論方向﹐成為學者討論其他理論比較的基準點﹐或曰慘成為天下圍攻的箭靶。

2.資源的分配比需遵守最大化最不幸社群利期的準則。換一句話說﹐公平的定義是資源均分﹐除非不均分配可以讓最差一群人也最受惠。舉個例子﹐上層﹐中產﹐基層有四個資源的分配安案﹐
A. 9, 4, 1
B. 8, 6, 2
C. 5, 4, 4
D. 3, 3, 3
自由主義必需要選擇第三個方案﹐不選擇極不公平的第一個方案原因很明顯。不選第四個方案是因為均貧﹐但反對資源最大化的第二個方案就有待相確了。第二教條一般稱之為不同定律(difference principle)

支持新自由主義的不同定律主要有兩個論點

1. 社會契約論
   假若每一個人也是自私和理性﹐若果我們投胎前不知道我們在社會上的起點﹐例如不知道父母是否有錢﹐不知道有沒有天賦材能。在沒有任何資訊的情況下﹐選擇新自由主義的不同定律是最好的社會契約。因為跟據風險最小化的推論﹐我們就算不幸生為基層﹐也希望有好日子過﹐所以就要把基層利益最大化了。

當然也有人會批評假設性的社會契約不切實際﹐現實沒可能出現無知的選擇。可是這是一個哲學性的思想實驗﹐理性中的理論不定要從現實出發﹐可以是先得出結果﹐再把現實理朝想方向改造。

最大問題是這個推論有一個盲點﹐忘記了機會率的風險評估和人性的賭徒心理。若選擇基層利益為勉強可以過活﹐就有機會博進入生活中上層享受榮華富貴﹐反正生在上中下三層的機會也是均等的。所以只保障基層的最低生活標準﹐也不失為一個可以接受的社會契約。

1. 公平推論
   古典自由主義保障基本人權﹐讓人可以在公平的情況下自由競爭。可是由為人生出來就是不平等﹐有些人家境富裕﹐有些人天資聰資﹐在公平競爭下的起步點全靠運氣安排﹐因此社會就要通過資源分配﹐讓所有人在同一的起步點開始競爭﹐所以就支持不同定律了。

這個公平推論看似有效﹐但是必須解答以下這些問題。

命生得好有運氣成份﹐可是成功也要靠運氣。一個出身寒微﹐天資平平的人﹐可以因為後天的努力和機緣巧合﹐成為一個坐擁巨大資源成功的人士﹐在起點公平下﹐他沒有理由要把資源分給其他人﹐所以不同定律就不成立。若一個人可以靠後天的好運氣﹐那不可以靠先天的好運氣就是不公平了。若果要把後天的好運氣的因素也除去﹐一來是實際上不可能做到﹐若要硬實行那人就會變得和機械人就沒有分別﹐所有事情也是整定。

其次就是不同定律沒有指明資源要代代清﹐若一個父母通過自身的努力﹐他們有權決定如何去使用賺取或分配到的資源。他們可以望子成龍的心態﹐希望子女未來有更好的生活﹐犧牲自己的可以享受的資源去裁培兒女。換一句話說強行要把人有起步點拉平﹐就會損害了父母公平使用資源的權利。

要把所有人的起步點拉平聽好像很公平﹐可是卻不切實際的空想。給窮家子弟獎學金升學﹐或為與建方便傷殘人仕的設施沒有大問題。可是對於一些嚴重殘障或弱智人士﹐不論投放多少資源他們也不可能公平競爭。基於不同定律的公平原則下﹐我們要把資源無限地掉入沒有回報黑洞﹐最終只會導至均貧。若把上限定為資源分均﹐則無視不同人有不同需要。若把資源分配與回報掛釣﹐則會變成自由主義所批評的功用主義。

最後就是養懶人的問題﹐基層所以窮有時候不全因為天生不幸﹐不同定律不能解決這個問題﹐因為沒有辨去細分基層的成因﹐這亦是福利主義常被批評的地方。做又三十六﹐唔做又三十六﹐與我們心目中公平的定義不乎。

很多人對功用主義有錯誤的理解﹐妨忽談功用就好像不道德似的。其實功用主義是眾多道德理論之一﹐主要解釋道德從何而來﹐何謂對何謂錯。哲學家John Stuart Mill所提出的功利主義的吸引力在於沒有既定立場﹐不需要神喻亦不需要無中生有的規條﹐由客觀的事實結果去決定道德立場﹐在一般人眼中功利主義的定義﹐就是要為最多人追求最好的生活。其實這個定義不太準確﹐功利主義可以細分為三個層面。

1. 何謂好﹐何謂功用
   傳統上功用主義好的定義是快樂﹐認為快樂是人所追求的共同值價。若人生只是追求快樂﹐全人類也吃食了會興奮迷幻藥不就是功用最大化嗎﹖所以人追求的值價很明顯不單只是快樂﹐還有其他的值價如豐富的生命﹐不同的人生經驗﹐甚至有時會是用痛苦辛勞換來的成功感。不過這又衍生出Matrix的問題﹐若單單經驗就是好的話﹐把全人類全捉入虛擬世界不就是功用最大化嗎﹖這不是我們落於見到的事﹐擁有創作一首詩的體驗﹐是等擁有同創作出一首詩這一個成果。

另一派的理論把好定義為人的自由意願﹐功用最大化就是滿足最多人的意願。可是很多人的意願不一定是好﹐甚至對自身有害﹐例如抽煙吸毒嗜賭等﹐滿足最多人的意願不能擔保結果一定是最好。其次意願會受環境因表影響﹐心理上會選擇次一等的意願﹐而不是真正的理想。例如酸葡萄心理作祟﹐生得醜就現實地說自己不希罕當港姐。可是就算每個人是足夠知識和理性﹐在天資家垃大至相若的情況下﹐所選擇的意願也會各不相同。現實上沒有一條公式可以衡量不同的意願的功用﹐更枉論說計算功用最大化。

功用的定義雖然在理論上不完美﹐但在實施中可以用相應的作出補救。加強教育鼓勵知識流通可以讓人作出最佳的理性選擇。不分配直接的意願﹐改為分配可以間接該意願實現的資源﹐就可以繞過量化不同意願的問題。功用主義中好的定義﹐大約可以最多的資源﹐最有效率的生產力去決定。

1. 何謂對﹐如何最大化
   一件事情是對是錯﹐在功用主義的角度去看是最終的結果決定一切。姑勿論選擇那一個好的定義﹐只要一件事最終可以把功用最大化﹐那就是正確合乎道德的事情。這個推論產生出幾個問題。

很多時候我們根本不可能預知結果﹐事後功用是否最大化也無從考證。

若只是向前看只論結果的話﹐那就會忽略歷史因素的考慮﹐可能以功用最大化為理由﹐違反遵守諾言履行合約等基本道德精神。例如債仔可以對債主說﹐有錢應該不還而要捐給宣明會﹐因為非洲的飢民比債主更需要那筆錢。

若以滿足最多人的意願為前題﹐不能排除有人的意願意明顯有道德問題﹐如種族歧視或虐殺施暴的變態﹐這很明顯與我們的道德相違。例子有古羅馬的奴隸競技遊戲﹐殺幾個奴隸就可以帶給全城歡樂。

最詭異的論點是功用主義的矛盾﹐正因為在應用層面上有這麼多問題﹐不實行功用主義才可以把功用最大化。至少對大部份民眾日常生活而言﹐記著要遵守一套道德規律就足夠了﹐不用凡事也作功用的計算。功用的計算就留給學者去做﹐制定政策推廣那套道德規律。不過這就會成為精英主義﹐像英國在舊殖民地的半愚民政策統治。

1. 何謂最大化﹐何謂平等
   功用主義的有兩個南轅北轍基礎理論﹐去解釋為什麼我們要支持功用主義。

第一個理論是假定每個人的意願也是平等﹐用邊際效益計算﹐所以每個人的利益要均分﹐得出平等就是等同功用最大化。問題是邊際效益的假設不一定成立﹐每個人的對社會的供獻和需求不同﹐像份餅仔般把資源均分很有可能不是得出資源最大化的結果。

第二個理論從相反的方向入手﹐把對的定義介定為功用最大化的結果﹐不論採用那一個功用的定義﹐資源的分配就是要把功用最大化。資源不一定要平均分配﹐可以是資源集中去提高生產力創造更多資源。問題是這個理論把人平等地視為功用的工具﹐與傳統人本道德理論不乎。不過也有哲學家支持這個想法﹐例如尼采認為創造是最高的道德﹐所以大部份凡人應該支持小部份天材去創新改進社會。

功用主義發源於十八世紀啟蒙改革年代﹐當時的社會由無能的貴族操控﹐以大部份人民利益為出發點的功用主義﹐就很自然成為改革的核心思想。在今天西方民主社會中﹐大部份人民的利益已經受到相當程度的保障﹐課題變成保障小部份不同聲音的利益。由於功用主義在功用的定義很空泛﹐由左至右不同的政治光譜的派系﹐也有其對功用不同的見解﹐得出的最大化的結果也不盡相同。不過各個政治派系有一個共通點﹐就非常強調重視理性的結果論﹐因為結果是檢定該推行什麼政策的唯一方法。

今個長週未我嘔心瀝血地躲在家中寫文﹐原本上星期要交的功課我問教授延期﹐這就是上星期去了夏威夷的代價。橫掂寫好了貼上來﹐雖然也不期望有幾多人會看得明白﹐又或其實大部人見了一大堆雞腸就不會看。

先介紹一下John Stuart Mill吧。此君是第一個提出現在政治法律哲學理念的人。他最出名的理論是“關你叉事定律”﹐說政府只可以應該有權力去防止市民作出傷害他人的行為﹐如果他對自己不好(可能只是主流社會主觀地認為不好)影響不到別人﹐政府就不應干涉他的私人生活。套用俗一點的說法﹐就是 “又影響唔到你﹐老子鐘意點就點﹐關你叉事呀﹗”

這個定律的應用層面很廣﹐由食煙吸毒至搞基信邪教的法例﹐無一不受這個定律影響。我這篇文章是評論他的經典名著On Liberty﹐看看他的關你叉事定律的立論是否合理

On Liberty – John Stuart Mill

Introduction:
In modern political philosophy classics, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill discusses the proper limit of the power the government and society can assert over individuals. He applies the principle of utilitarianism to argue that setting up our legal system based on the harm to other principle is best for the society. In this essay, I will comment Mill’s two arguments supporting his viewpoint in liberty of action by showing their weaknesses. I am not rejecting Mill’s idea on liberty and individual freedom. In the matter of fact, I believe Mill’s work is a corner stone of modern legal systems. I am only demonstrating his arguments are not sufficient to support the conclusion. First I will start by explaining a few definitions in his book to clarity some key ideas.

Definition of terms:
Harm to others principle: The harm to others principle states that the government can only interfere with the actions of its people when the actions are causing harm to others. The government can only punish individuals harming others directly by his action, or indirectly by his inaction through neglecting his duty to the society. The government is not justified to punish people if their action only brings harm to themselves but not others. This principle not only applies to limiting the power of the legal system but also applies to limiting the power of the public opinion, which pressures individuals to conform through moral pressure.

Paternalism: The government and the public opinion acts as the parent of its people, using force to prevent the people harming themselves.

Soft-Paternalism: The government and the public opinion only assert controls on minors or incompetent people who lack rational judgement for their own good. According to Mill, soft-paternalism can also apply to uncivilised races that could not govern themselves.

Hard-Paternalism: The government and the public opinion assert control on adults and component people in the society for their own good.

Enforcement of morality: The government and public opinion interferes self regarding actions of individuals based on morality.

Mill rejects hard-paternalism and enforcement of morality based on the harm to others principle. However he adopts soft-paternalism for obvious practical reasons. Mill has developed two lines of argument to support his view of proper scope of individual liberty of action based on the harm to other principle. In the following paragraphs, I will first outline the arguments, followed by my criticisms to the arguments and Mill’s potential responses. At last I will evaluate whether Mill has successfully defended his view on liberty of action.

Argument from social progress:
Mill first establishes his argument of encouraging individuality will lead to greater good in the society from two sub-arguments: the opposing the despotism of custom and the creation of genius. He thinks allowing individuals to choose his own life will leads to a better life in term of happiness and development. Traditions and custom will limit liberty if they are followed blindly. People should have the right to examine existing customs and decide which one to follow by making rational choices. Mills thinks many people follows customs are merely copying what others do from their experience, without reflecting whether the customs are good or bad. He also thinks geniuses are one of the most important factors in making progress in our society. In other to cultivate geniuses, who are often different from normal people, we need a society with an atmosphere of freedom and variety of situations. He uses examples of collective meritocracy in middle age Europe and eighteen centuries China to support this argument. After his argument for liberty is secured, he further develops his argument that the harm to other principle is necessary to archive this kind of freedom in the society by allowing people to freely express themselves. From the utilitarian perspective, it is beyond dispute that greater good for the society is always desired. Therefore, Mills concludes that we should adopt the harm to others principle for the greater good for the society.

Argument form individual judgement:
Mill starts his argument by defining the difference between self regarding actions and other regarding actions. Our society is formed based on unwritten social contract agreed by all the members. Every individual enjoys the right and benefits being a member of the society in return for bearing his fair share of responsibility. Therefore those who violate the rights of others should be punished by the society, since it is one of its major functions. According to Mills, the society should not interfere with individuals’ self regarding, which only affect the person himself but not others. He states that each rational person has more interest in promoting his own well being than the good for others. He has better knowledge about what is best for himself than anyone one else. Therefore society should not force him to follow the judgement of other people by punishing his wrong doing in the eyes of others. The society may warn him the danger and consequence of his action, but should let him be the final judge. He should bear no more punishment than the natural consequence of his action if that does not affect others. Other people in the society have the right to avoid him or express their distastes towards his action. Mills says the society can only overrule the judgement of individual by legal means if there is a firm ground he is incapable of making the right judgement. Therefore, we should adopt the harm to others principle to respect individual judgements.

Criticism against argument from social progress:
My objection to Mill’s social progress argument is that he assumes tradition and customs are arbitrary rules come from the thin air. He doesn’t realize customs are created to serve the better good for the society in the first place. People follow customs not because they are forced to but because in most of the time custom is the most efficient and convenient way to solve the problems in the society. It is true that when technology progress and situation changes, some customs become out of date and can no longer serve their purpose. Since customs carry their own momentum, the society may take a long to correct itself when customs obsolete. In order to help the society archive higher efficient and progress sooner than later, the society should have the right to uplift those who hang on to old custom through jurisdiction. For example, according to Mill’s argument, we should allow the Amish or Indian reserves continue on their pre-industrial way of living, provided that it is their own choice. It is evidently that the society would progress faster and everyone will lead to a better life if we can modernize the Amish and Native Indians. Therefore, we should only reject the deposition of obsolete and inefficient customs that hinder progress. We should not throw away the baby with bath water by rejecting the deposition of newer and more efficient custom to those who refuse to change.

Defence for argument from social progress:
Mill may attempt to reply my criticism by claiming we are merely flattering ourselves that we are the most progress people who ever lived. He could argue the old customs may better serve the society than the new customs. However, if we study Mill more carefully, we will find that he worries the society will become stagnated if changes are not allowed or too slow. He does not worry about changes happening too fast. In the matter of fact he uses the harm to other principle to encourage changes. I think he may actually agree with my criticism that the harm to others principle is not sufficiently justified by social progress alone. Since he supports soft-paternalism, maybe he can revise his position by stating those who cannot adapt to changes are non-competent people. The enlightened people have the right to impose the new customs on to the losers in the game of social Darwinism.

Criticism against argument from individual judgement:
My object to Mill’s individual argument is that the harm to other principle is self contradictory if we follow the train of thoughts in this argument. According to the harm to other principle, the government only interfere when individuals are causing harm to others. What about individuals interfere with others for good causes out of altruism? According to Mills, the government should not punish those people. Therefore each individual are free to enforce their morality on other as they see fit. For example, a person can take away the cigarette of a smoker because stopping him from smoking is not causing him any harm. A doctor is free to perform blood transfusion on a believer of Jehovah Witness against his will also because it does not cause him any harm. Moreover, Mill agrees that individuals can avoid and openly caution others against those they feel distasted. In a modern society based on division of labour, if the majority are free to isolate the minority, the minority are in effect excommunicated from the society. Put it in another words, Mill’s harm to others principle allows discrimination against the minority. The inaction or avoidance of each individual in the majority group doesn’t violate the harm to others principle. However collectively, the majority can control the actions of the minority through moral coercion of public opinion.

Defence for argument from individual judgement:
Mill may response to my criticism by saying that twisting the harm to other principle against itself violates the spirit of the principle. The principle is intended to protect the liberty of action of the minority from the majority. The majority exploiting the loopholes in the principle will not bring the society any good. Granted, he is right to condemn those abusing the principle based on the utilitarian argument. However Mill has no choice but patch the harm to other principle to avoid such undesired consequences. He may add further constraint to the principle by including more actions besides those causing harm to others or adding secondary principle to seal up the loopholes. I think no matter which solution he picks, he nullifies the argument from individual judgement in its original form.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, I think my criticism on Mill’s view on liberty of action is in good faith. I have no intention to reject the fundamental idea of Mill’s political philosophy on individual freedom. By pointing out the inconsistency in Mill’s theory, I helped discover some potential problem in the implementation of the harm to others principle. Although Mill’s response to my criticism cannot defence his original argument for the principle, he may addressing those issues with a revised version of principle. I think my criticisms have no negative effects on Mill’s place in modern political philosophy. Instead my criticisms strengthen Mill’s position on liberty and power of the government.