Integrity Has No Need of Rules

Had a friend (former friend) post a quote from Camus, “Integrity has no need of rules”. When I challenged that, he got snotty. I read some Camus, many years ago. I might even still have “The Myth of Sisyphus” in my library – I’m not sure. The book was about the absurdity of this world, yet this quote from his book was the height of absurdity. To Camus ‘everything is permitted, which simply shows that Camus was an ass.

Integrity in this world does not exist as an absolute. There are no real absolutes in this world. Everything is relative, and much of it is in a sense absurd. It is absurd in part because people live as though absolutes did exist. They live as though good was wholly good and evil was wholly evil, like there was a true black and a true white and the world was absolutely divided between the two.

Yet in truth, the whole world is gray. There is no unalloyed good. Power corrupts, money corrupts. These corruptions, along with the various lusts that all creatures are prone to, mean that society must set rules, limits, and boundaries in order to maintain some poor semblance of civilization. All too often what passes for civilization is indeed only a poor semblance.

People have individual rights that ought not be breached – regardless of whether some fool feels that the absurdity of life gives him the right to live without rules. A person who chooses to live without rules, can only truly do so outside society.

We can look around the world and see the results of ‘living without rules’ in many of the lawless regions. Murder, rape, theft, etc. are rampant, because too many people in those areas feel that the only rules that apply are those that suit themselves. We end up with the strong forcing their will upon the weak until or unless the weak can come together and as a group force the strong to stop.

Camus’ cry is that of someone who wishes for the freedom to force their will on others. It is the cry of the so called ‘libertarian’ who seems to want nothing so much as to be freed from societal constraints, so they can cheat, exploit, and use others at will. Their hope, of course, is that they do not get cheated, exploited, or used in turn.

They want a ‘dog eat dog’ world, where the strongest (read themselves) can rise to the heights which they feel they deserve, but which they feel they can’t reach because of governmental or societal rules and limits. In truth, they want the protections of society, but not the constraints. They, of course, are always free to move to a more lawless area and try to exercise their freedoms there – for so long as they manage to live. That is not what they want.

There will always need to be a balance between the rights of individuals to freedom and the rights of society as a whole. That balance is not easily maintained and will constantly be in flux. At times society (and through society, government) will impose unreasonable limitations. As our understanding changes, that which is reasonable will also change. As a general rule, one person’s liberty ends when it impairs the liberty or rights of another.

John Stuart Mill, in his essay “On Liberty” said there were three basic liberties: “1) The freedom of thought and emotion. 2) The freedom to pursue tastes (provided they do no harm to others), even if they are deemed "immoral". 3) The freedom to unite so long as the involved members are of age, the involved members are not forced, and no harm is done to others.”

Mill generally felt that a person should be left as free to pursue his own interests so long as that does not harm the interests of others. That is a crucial difference between the liberty of Mill and the philosophy of Camus and the libertarians. Camus allows no limitations even when the interests of others are being harmed. That is where Camus is wrong, and where the libertarians are wrong.

Do we have more rules and regulations than are necessary to protect the interests of others? Yes, we do. Laws against drug use, laws against prostitution, laws against any number of ‘victimless’ crimes are genuine infringements against the liberty that Mill speaks of. Yet in many other instances, some in our society seem to wish to roll back or ignore those rules which protect the interests of others.

Environmental laws and rules are society and government trying to protect the interests of others against those who would despoil the air, water, or land. Consumer protection laws are trying to protect the interests of common consumers against businesses which would cheat or exploit them for their own gain. Balance becomes the key. We must protect the weak from exploitation, while not unduly limiting the freedoms of others.