Principles Without Substance

The problem with principles is that they become the de facto argument. In many cases that is entirely appropriate. Those of us who, for instance, believe that there should be a state safety net for those who fail would be hard pressed to justify it beyond a call to principles. However, too often the real principle that we believe in becomes obscured behind a cause which takes the shape of a principle in our minds, but in fact lacks the substance.

Examples from politics are easy to find. The free market, European integration. Support or opposition for many political ideas take the form of principles. But why does someone support the free market? Why oppose European integration? Or vice versa. In and of themselves, they serve no purpose. There are rational arguments that can be made to support any of these positions - albeit some more convincing than others - yet too many people have no argument beyond a spurious appeal to principle. Examining the assumptions underlying our principles can make us challenge them. Those principles which survive the test emerge the stronger.

Another example of unchallenged assumptions can be found by talking to many vegetarians. Far be it from me to dictate what people choose to eat - it is just a shame others would do me the same courtesy. Too many vegetarians assume that their choice is automatically more moral than the alternatives. Meat, we are told, is murder. Unfortunately, a little checking will uncover plenty of evidence that plants feel pain just as much as animals do. Chop down one pine tree, and those nearby will push sap under their bark, toughening them against axe blows. The dying tree releases a chemical scream which trees accessing the same water supply pick up. Many plants will withdraw their leaves from a heat source before they are damaged, in an exact parallel to our own pain reflex. The evidence for plants feeling pain is as strong as for animals. So why is eating plants more moral? Admittedly, fruit is designed to be eaten, but making this your sole source of nourishment would be both dull and, crucially, unhealthy. Other vegetarians claim that producing crops takes less land than raising livestock, per person fed. Yet much farmland is unsuitable for growing much other than grass, which we can only digest when its been converted into a cow or sheep. Ban livestock, and you ban commercial farming on much of the Scottish highlands and islands.

One final example that I've come across a few times, especially recently. There are many people in the developed world who do not want children. Fair enough, that's their decision. What I do find interesting is the reason some people have given - that they don't want to contribute to the over-population of the world. Indeed I recently saw someone using this belief to criticise someone else's decision to have children. Now, worrying about over-population is well and good. The world's resources are finite, and the increasing population can only put more pressure on those dwindling resources. However, does this have anything to do with people in the developed world having babies?

Most modern states are experiencing either relatively stable populations, or population crashes. There are the odd exception - mainly due to immigration. Stable populations are fine, but population crashes are disasters. Germany is facing major problems simply because people aren't having enough children. Essentially - who is going to do all the work? Over population comes not from the developed world, but the desperation of the developing world. When you have no family planning or welfare state, the only protection you have in your old age is that provided by your children.

So, those of us who are in the developed world can safely have two, three or even four children (since many people will have none) and contribute to the security of our own society. The problems of over-population need to be tackled in the developing world by investment in health and other social services, family planning, and education. Indeed, with the world-wide fertility figures having now fallen below two children per woman, the major problem we face globally is that people are living longer. Whether one Briton has children or not is pretty irrelevant. There are major problems we face because of the world's demographic trends. They will not be cured by a simplistic call for "less children", but by education, co-operation, and by better management of the resources we do have available.

Principles, once established, provide an easy basis for our lives. We do not need to consider them, or justify them. Yet, attempting to do so is a worthwhile task. By examining our principles, we can uncover the real principles underneath. No one really supports European integration for itself, except through a lazy refusal to examine their motives. Real support is determined for economic reasons, or for the major part the EU has played in the fifty-odd years of peace we are enjoying. Sometimes, examining principles will even led us to accept that they are wrong. That the simplistic reasoning of our younger days needs to give way to a more complex worldview, and the new principles needed to tackle it.

Graham Robinson. 25th August 2004.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.