FROM METAPHYSICS TO LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY
321
That's also something we know from common sense: We have incli–
nations, desires, wishes and habits. But we can monitor these and we can
guide ourselves away from or in line with them. We may want to eat more
than we finally decide we should. So, we stop. That doesn't mean that our
inclination isn't there. It means that our higher brain functions are capable
of monitoring and altering our inclinations. This is what we call self–
res traint, resi sting temptation.
We can affirm human initiative without violating science or the tenets
of coherence. So what are the broad political implications of this, if any?
The contemporary liberal-libertarian would argue that we start by notic–
ing that under most normal conditions, unless a person has been terribly
abused or kept in a closet for the first twelve years of his or her life, human
beings have the capacity for free choices, that they can actually can initiate
some of their conduct, and that the conduct is not simply explainable by
reference to past events. From this it follows that human beings have to
learn to act because they are not given prompters, instincts, that tell them
what to do. Put generally, we all, except for the crucially incapacitated,
have to learn to live right.
This accords with many cultural practices throughout human societies
and history. We send people to school. We don't expect them to acquire
knowledge of chemistry or computer science or philosophy by instinct, in
the way most birds and bees acquire their behavior. Birds don't forget to
fly south-the bulk of them do not make a mistake and stay home. They
don't have this problem. Human beings are the ones who can act badly or
well, on their own initiative.
Furthermore, another implication of this understanding of human
nature is that we are self-responsible creatures, that a great deal of what is
important in our lives, we must produce on our own. We have to playa
decisive role in what happens in our lives. If we don't, we don't learn. We
don't realize the cost of mistakes. They come back to haunt us. This is evi–
dent in the discussion the topic at hand. If someone disagrees, the
implication is that one has argued badly. If someone agrees, the implication
is that one has argued correctly. Either way, one is held responsible.
When we consider what self-responsibility implies, the notion of lib–
erty starts creeping into our vocabulary. It turns out that self-responsibility
requires, in a community context, that people have their own private juris–
diction where both their achievements and their failures are within their
own domain and not dumped on others. Here one sees the implications for
environmental ethics and politics. Human beings, who are self-responsible,
who can create as well as destroy, need to have their own dominion, their
own private property wherein their achievements and mistakes take effect.
