Column on Hayek & Morality

Hayek on Morality

Tibor R. Machan

When he was about to receive the Nobel Prize in economic science, I interviewed F. A. Hayek for Reason magazine (at his home in Salzburg, Austria). Although he didn’t believe that political economists should dwell on ethical issues per se, he was by no means “necessarily a moral relativist” as Francis Fukuyama asserts in his Sunday New York Times Book Review piece (5-8-2011) of the new edition of The Constitution of Liberty (edited by Ronald Hamowy for the University of Chicago Press, 2011).

Hayek did, of course, object to the notion, mentioned by Fukuyama, that “there is a higher perspective from which one person can dictate another’s ends.” However, the stress here needs to be on “dictate.” No one can do what is morally right when this is being dictated to or coerced from a person. That isn’t at all because ethics or morality is subjective or relative. It is because to hold someone responsible for either morally right and wrong actions, it is that person who has to be the cause of it. The criminal law recognizes this, as have most moral philosophers. And when it is denied that one has free will or can exercise free choice about what one will or will not do, morality disappears. This is why so many thinkers who embrace determinism either reject morality as bogus or transform it into a social psychological device by which desired behavior might be encouraged or prompted from people. (A good example is much of the current work by nureoscientists!)

As Hayek put it elsewhere, “It is only where the individual has choice, and its inherent responsibility, that he has occasion to affirm existing values, to contribute to their further growth, and to earn moral merit.” (“The Moral Element in Free Enterprise,” Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967], pp. 230.) However, this view does not depend on moral relativism but on the ancient idea, held by most moral philosophers, that for conduct to be morally significant, it must be done freely, as a matter of the free choice of the moral agent.

One way to discredit defenders of political and economic liberty is to allege that they do not take ethics or morality seriously, that they are indeed subjectivists or relativists. Most people are pretty sure that some human conduct is ethically wrong or right. They teach this to their children and hold to this idea as they judge their fellows, including politicians and international movers and shakers. So to suggest that someone like Hayek, who defends freedom of choice in the market place, is a moral relativist pretty much serves to dismiss his or her views. But it is a mistake.

Alas, the effort does not succeed even when it is made by a famous public intellectual like Francis Fukuyama. It would have been far more accurate to say that for Hayek the tenets of a sound ethics or morality aren’t directly relevant to political economy. As he said in the same interview for Reason magazine, “I don’t see why it should be necessary for political philosophy to have any view at all about what is right for man—unless the political system does something about it, it needn’t concern itself with what is right for man.” This may be objected to for a variety of reasons but not because it supports moral relativism. Indeed, something akin to this position is held by Professors Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen in their book Norms of Liberty (Penn State Press, 2005) when they argue that the principles of classical liberalism aren’t directly derivable from ethics but are, instead, meta-norms, meaning, norms that are required for the social realization of ethically significant conduct.

The relationship between objective personal morality and the principles of politics which are basic to a constitution such as Hayek’s constitution of liberty is a challenging aspect of political philosophy. It does not help to casually dismiss Hayek’s approach by caricaturing it as moral relativism.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Column on Hayek & Morality

  1. Ryan says:

    I don’t concur with Dr. Hayek’s Utilitarian ethic but Fukuyama was just plain intellectually sloppy to proclaim it moral relativism.

    I have always believed (even having a faint notion in my childhood) and into young adulthood today, that there exists a moral law that is both superior to and prior to government.

    I don’t believe constructing classical liberalism upon a foundation of utility or consequentialism is a sufficiently strong enough moral mooring.

    This is not to take anything away from Dr. Hayek and his magnificent corpus. ‘ The Road to Serfdom’ and ‘The Constitution of Liberty’ are awe-inspiring.

    I simply adhere to the natural law/natural rights tradition.

    I have a question, Dr. Machan.

    Professors Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen, if I understand their complex theory correctly, that natural rights are needed in order to best protect the ultimate ethical end of human flourishing. That human flourishing is agent – directed and natural rights are best able to create the ‘moral space’ necessary for individualized human flourishing to occur, while at the same time ensuring that no particular method or version of human flourishing will be preferred over another in a political system.

    My question may very well be a simple – minded one, so I beg your forgiveness, but is that not placing the cart before the horse?

    I thought secular Natural Law/Natural Rights Theorists in the Aristotelian/Lockean tradition derive natural rights *themselves* from human flourishing?

    If natural rights are the means and human flourishing is the natural end, then what is the source of our natural rights?

    Our nature, yes. Just as a rose has a specific nature and an oak tree has a specific nature but how does one determine the source of natural rights?

    • szatyor2693 says:

      What is derived from the ethics of human flourishing is the requirement that a just society make such flourishing possible and that the citizenry support it for that reason.

  2. Ryan says:

    Thank you for all of your responses Dr. Machan.

    I truly appreciate you taking the time considering how otherwise engaged you normally are.

    I received a signed copy of ‘Individuals and Their Rights’ this week and I am probing its considerable depths.

    I am sincerely seeking to get a firmer grasp of these complexities because of my personal passion for individual rights and liberty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s