"We hold that what one man cannot morally do, a million men cannot morally do, and government, representing many millions of men, cannot do"
About this Quote
Auberon Herbert’s assertion challenges the ethical foundation of collective action, particularly as embodied by government. The statement insists upon the primacy of individual morality as the criterion against which all actions, whether personal, collective, or institutional, must be judged. If a solitary individual does not have the moral right to perform a certain act, the aggregation of people into a group does not magically confer ethical legitimacy upon that act. Power in numbers, this view maintains, cannot transform an immoral deed into a moral one.
The implication runs deep, especially concerning the role of government, which often enforces policies and actions that would be considered unacceptable, or even criminal, if performed by individuals outside the structure of the state. Herbert’s perspective applies philosophical rigor to the concept of authority, demanding that governments must not claim or exercise rights that are fundamentally denied to solitary people. Coercive actions such as theft or aggression do not become justifiable merely because they are sanctioned or carried out by a democratically elected body or an official institution.
By challenging the notion that collective intent or majority will can override individual rights, the statement assumes a staunchly individualist, possibly libertarian, ethic. It compels citizens and lawmakers alike to reflect critically upon the moral consistency of law, public policy, and culture. At its core is the idea that genuine morality is not subject to statistical force or the weight of popular sentiment. Decisions, whether made alone or in millions, must adhere to the same ethical standards.
Herbert’s words caution against the seductive belief that the legitimacy of government is based merely on numbers or representation. Instead, they advocate for unwavering ethical consistency, reminding society that neither collective identity nor political structure absolves anyone of personal moral responsibility.
The implication runs deep, especially concerning the role of government, which often enforces policies and actions that would be considered unacceptable, or even criminal, if performed by individuals outside the structure of the state. Herbert’s perspective applies philosophical rigor to the concept of authority, demanding that governments must not claim or exercise rights that are fundamentally denied to solitary people. Coercive actions such as theft or aggression do not become justifiable merely because they are sanctioned or carried out by a democratically elected body or an official institution.
By challenging the notion that collective intent or majority will can override individual rights, the statement assumes a staunchly individualist, possibly libertarian, ethic. It compels citizens and lawmakers alike to reflect critically upon the moral consistency of law, public policy, and culture. At its core is the idea that genuine morality is not subject to statistical force or the weight of popular sentiment. Decisions, whether made alone or in millions, must adhere to the same ethical standards.
Herbert’s words caution against the seductive belief that the legitimacy of government is based merely on numbers or representation. Instead, they advocate for unwavering ethical consistency, reminding society that neither collective identity nor political structure absolves anyone of personal moral responsibility.
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Auberon
Add to List
