Abstract for my talk at the upcoming APEE conference in Las Vegas:
“Is Freedom a Subjective Value?
Stephen Hicks
Some economists speak of subjective value, by which they mean that value does not inhere in objects but rather is a function of the individual. Different individuals, for example, are willing to pay very different amounts of money for the same object, and this shows that value is individualized, particularized, and relative — in a word, subjective.
As a further consequence, some advocates of subjective value will argue that one individual cannot tell another what his values should be and, especially, that he cannot impose his values on another.
At the same time, some of those economists believe that the system of economic freedom is the best for everyone. And they believe that is true even though they know that many other economists do not value freedom. That is to say, they seem to believe that freedom is a universal value independent of the subjective values of many others, and they believe that they can tell those other economists that they are wrong not to value freedom.
So there is a set of questions here for the thesis of subjective value: Is it compatible with advocating economic freedom for all? If so, how do we resolve the apparent paradox? If not, do we need to (a) modify the thesis of subjective value or (b) abandon arguing for economic freedom as a universal value?
An economic system is not an object. It is the framework by which we express those subjective values. To say that the system should be judged by that same criterion is akin to asking for a “proof” that logic is valid. The instant you do that, you are assuming logic. And the instant you say that the free market should be treated as a subjective value, you are assuming the free market.
I would think it should be obvious, but the concept of POV (point of view) doesn’t invalidate the concept of objectivity any more than having a heart invalidates having a brain. The study of perspective is an example of the study of the relationship of objective reality to the subjective perception of it, but neither invalidates or contradicts the other. Because I haven’t eaten in two days, hence prioritize buying food, doesn’t mean I can’t understand that my friend, who has just had dinner, might prioritize buying a music recording instead. The reality of subjective preferences don’t invalidate concepts of objectivity, freedom and rights. Indeed they are best viewed in their context.
Cultural relativism is an irredeemably pernicious notion. Cultures are human creations: societal survival mechanisms that exist to serve people, not the other way around. Hence they must as subject to evaluation and, where necessary, to revision as any other human creation. Adaptation is a law of survival. Most would acknowledge the folly of holding onto an outdated and harmful medical practice like bleeding: the issue of culture is not different. Nazi kulture ought to – but clearly doesn’t – give the relativists pause.
The only purpose of cultural relativism is to still criticism – except of course of reason, individualism, capitalism and other Western values. As such it is a betrayal of every victim of oppression. Are we to commend withholding condemnation of the Taliban for shooting 16 year old school girl Malala Yousafzai in the back of the head for working for girls’ education? (“It’s just their way…”)
Tyranny, oppression, persecution, pogroms, censorship, torture, witch hunts, inquisitions, genital mutilation, mass murder, crusades and just general all around asininity? No, back to the drawing board.
The founding fathers wrote the First Amendment precisely to cast the mantle of state protection over the citizen’s right to criticize, be it his fellows – including their religions and philosophies – or the state itself.
The freedom to criticize is a cornerstone of Western power. Obviously censorship isn’t required to defend good ideas. A society that lacks the resilience to brook criticism must content itself with impotence before one that can. The rule of dogma obliges a society to cut down its brightest, bravest and best and with them their gifts of correction, knowledge and power.
That said, I think one has to separate fundamental from peripheral issues. For example I love many of the non-religious aspects of Christmas and Easter (holidays stolen by Christians from Pagans), and secular-minded Persian friends love the festivities associated with Nouruz (Persian New Year). But where there are genuinely harmful cultural mores I prefer trying to discover what produced the mindset and perspectives that led to them instead of satisfying myself with mere condemnation of them. Understanding is not the same as agreeing with. But ultimately I would concur with Mrs. O’Connor that man’s life must be the standard by which cultures are measured.