I find the arguments for the existence of God intrinsically interesting. Among the many arguments that exist, one that I find quite ingenious in favor of the existence of God is Alvin Plantinga’s modal ontological argument. I won’t go into too much detail about the finer points of that argument here, but in a very simplified and condensed form, I can explain it like this: After presenting a definition of “God,” the argument simply starts with a single premise: that the existence of such a being is at least possible. From there, it goes through a series of steps, using modal logic, to reach the conclusion that the existence of such a being is necessarily true. The argument is logically valid, and everything follows deductively from the rather modest premise that the existence of God is merely possible. That is, to deny the conclusion of the argument, one needs to refute its first and only premise and present a positive argument that the existence of God is impossible.
One of the biggest counterarguments to the modal ontological argument is to point out that there are symmetric arguments that can be constructed to reach the opposite conclusion. That is, starting from the fairly modest premise that it is possible for God to not exist, one can also use the same logically valid steps to reach the conclusion that God’s absence is necessarily true. To resolve this issue, one needs to propose some kind of symmetry breaking between these two arguments, which would give us some non-arbitrary reason to prefer one over the other. Philosophers and theologians have proposed various symmetry breaking ideas over the years; a summary and evaluation of them can be found in this If you’re interested, check out our recently published paper.
Why am I saying this? Lately I’ve been Posts I think libertarianism and classical liberalism place more importance on reciprocity than other political philosophies. I have argued that Thomas Christiano’s argument for democratic authority based on the duty to show proper respect for the judgment of our fellow citizens fails because the duties he lists (if they exist at all, which is far from clear!) are reciprocal in nature. I said:
Even if we suppose that it is an unforgivable error to put one’s judgment above the judgment of others, the situation is still reciprocal. If my fellow citizens say that I must go along with their decision because if I do not go along with theirs, I am treating them unfairly, since I would be regarding my judgment as superior to theirs. It can also be said that their attempt to force me to go along with their decision is treating me unfairly, since they are prioritizing their judgment above mine, considering me inferior. The situation is reciprocal.
I also comment on Yoram Hazony’s concerns. Free Trade Weakening mutual loyalty among citizens will not succeed for the same reasons.
After all, Hazony’s oft-quoted Mutual loyalty Mutual loyalty is CommonObligations go both ways. So why would I not show proper loyalty to Walter by buying from Karl, and why would Walter not show proper loyalty to me by insisting that I buy from him, even though it imposes a significant additional financial burden on me? Simply saying “mutual loyalty” does not solve this problem.
Like the modal ontological argument, both of these situations require a symmetry breaker before their proponents can reach the conclusions they seek. And I think that’s what classical liberal and libertarian thought brings to the table, by focusing on the mutuality of these situations. Bringing up symmetries Semantic stop signIt is designed to close the conversation. It is an invitation to move the conversation forward by pointing out that there is a further element that requires attention.
Dylan also commented in the comments section of the previous post. raised Problems related to symmetry breaking ExternalitiesDylan points out that often times people’s moral intuitions about a situation are what break the symmetry. In my post I brought up Ronald Coase’s insight about the reciprocity of externalities, and Dylan explained that widely held beliefs about a particular case break the symmetry of the situation for many people. He said:
If we take the classic externality of a polluting factory as an example, the idea that we should pay to stop the factory from polluting (or pay to reduce our own exposure) feels wrong on a fundamental level, even if the solution wins out in terms of efficiency.
I think this accurately represents how the majority of people would react to this situation. It feels wrong to say to someone “If you’re so upset about smoke and soot falling on your yard, why don’t you pay the factory to install a scrubber?” Most people would have a strong response of “They shouldn’t be spraying soot on my house in the first place, so why should you?” I Must pay they To stop that?”
I think that in many cases moral considerations are what cause symmetry breaking. To take a simple example, my desire to keep my house from burning interferes with Pyro Pete’s desire to burn my house. Technically, we are mutually imposing in symmetric ways. But I don’t think it’s a big moral mystery to figure out what causes the symmetry breaking in this situation. Because arson is wrong, my imposition on Pyro Pete’s wishes is morally justified in a symmetry-breaking way.
In situations where moral obligations are not clear (or do not apply), there may be other causes that break the symmetry. Social conventions and norms may cause symmetry to be broken. Alternatively, in the court system, the “least cost avoider” principle is a criterion that is sometimes used. In this criterion, if two parties are equally burdened by each other (in a way that does not clearly violate existing laws or moral obligations), the responsibility to improve the situation is given to the party that has the lowest cost of doing so. If changing the situation would be a big burden for me but only a small inconvenience for you, that would be a symmetry breaker in these cases.
The libertarian and classical liberal focus on reciprocity and symmetry does not arise out of a desire to claim that all laws and interventions are always unjust because all situations are symmetric. If that were the case, libertarians would claim that laws banning Pyro Pete from filling my house are unjust, but I have yet to meet a libertarian who supports arson! But libertarians and classical liberals are right to point out that the problem of reciprocity and symmetry exists and is an important problem worth considering. Symmetry is not an insurmountable obstacle, but ignoring the problem is not justified. To the extent that libertarians and classical liberals continue to raise the issue, they are contributing to the public debate.
