The moral minefield

THE LEVEL GLOBAL PLAYING-FIELD

THE LEVEL GLOBAL PLAYING-FIELD

Obvious enough, you might think. Fair-minded Independent-reading types can't possibly believe - can we? - that UK citizens have some inherent entitlement to a higher standard of living than inhabitants of other, lesser nations. Yet when soulless multinationals relocate jobs or capital in accordance with global labour-market forces, we like to cry "foul" (just as we do when our health service or transport system exhibit signs of having "Third World" attributes). Perhaps we're just hypocrites.

But there's a genuine dilemma here. For if we believe that workers all over the world have a right to compete on equal terms, then by implication we approve of the destruction by market forces of much of the British manufacturing industry, and the communities it sustained. Come to think of it, even the murder of the coal-mining industry was largely a consequence of competition from overseas. Presumably we were in favour of that too... Or do we want to revert to the view that the British are entitled to a cushier life than the rest of the world? A tricky one, this, and perhaps best not examined too deeply.

PAYING FOR THE PRIVILEGE

Education. Health. First-class travel. The best seats in the house. Traditionally, good liberals can never buy themselves an advantage without feeling at least a twinge of guilt. But if you have the money, are you really helping everyone else by not paying according to your means? Is it more moral to rely on the state for your pension than to pay for your own? And, if it isn't, why doesn't the same argument apply when it comes to removing your child from an overcrowded class - or yourself from an overcrowded waiting-list - in order to go private? Conversely, if going private is wrong in those circumstances, isn't it equally wrong to use the M6 toll motorway? Or, for that matter, to pay the fees for the care home for the elderly into which you will shortly be moving when others are getting theirs paid for by the state?

Our advice? Don't earn the money in the first place: not only will this question not arise, but you'll avoid the related sub-dilemma of whether or not your principled objection to private schools overrides your duty to provide your children with the best possible education.

'GREEN' DEVELOPMENT

Environmentally-speaking, you believe that we are all going to hell in a handcart; and that our only hope of avoiding eco-catastrophe is through a radical realignment of our energy and transport policies. But you also value our rural environment and are passionately opposed to any further desecration of our precious, diminishing stock of beautiful hills, coastlines, etc.

So: what happens when someone proposes to erect a giant wind-farm on your favourite skyline - or, if you live near the Moray Firth or Barrow-in-Furness, just off your favourite coast? Does the potential long-term national benefit outweigh the local cost? Perhaps it depends on whether or not the hills, coastlines, etc, happen to be your local ones (although opposition to various Scottish wind-power proposals also comes from wilderness-lovers further afield). But even those who can rise above selfish concerns may find it hard to make confident calculations about the relative value of, on the one hand, certain destruction of beauty and, on the other, the uncertain benefits of new energy technology.

Similar arguments apply, though in different proportions, to the creation of nuclear power stations; and to such "green" developments as the occasionally mooted Central Railway freight line.

The obvious answer to all such questions is that the good liberal should support the solution that is best for the country - or the world - as a whole. But the wise liberal then counters with the argument that we can hardly ever know what the long-term, global consequences of our actions will be; whereas the destruction, now, of a specific area of natural beauty is both certain and, usually, irrevocable. The challenge is thus to balance a known evil against an uncertain benefit. Solution: toss a coin.

RACE AND EQUALITY

Simple enough, you might think. A person's value either is or isn't related to the colour of his or her skin. As right-thinking liberals, we believe that it isn't - while, as scientifically-aware free-thinkers, we query the whole concept of "race". In which case it is, clearly, absolutely wrong that any jobs, university places or political posts should be distributed on the basis of racial criteria. Yet real life is messier than that. The evidence of our eyes shows that, in a society that officially plays by "race-blind" rules, some "races" fare less well than others.

Solution: counteract the unofficial discrimination that causes this with "positive discrimination", or "affirmative action". Except that this is to fall into precisely the trap that we want to avoid; dealing with people on the basis of their "race" rather than their qualities as individual human beings.

Considered solution: none. Different liberals will come down on different sides of this fence on the basis of, usually, gut feeling. Honest liberals will also admit to a gnawing concern that they might be wrong.

JOBS

You conclude that a particular industry or activity - the arms trade, say, or fox-hunting - is harmful or immoral. Do you insist it be stamped out? Or do you take into account the job losses that would result?

Perhaps it depends on the perceived noxiousness of the activity in question. You wouldn't, for example, cite job losses as a reason for not closing down a concentration camp. You might consider them as a reason for not strangling the entire British motor industry, whose damaging environmental effects could ultimately have disastrous consequences for us all. And what if your spouse, or your best friend, or a large number of people in your local community, worked in the industry in question?

Members of Parliament, who usually believe themselves to be striving for the general good, are particularly familiar with this dilemma. They tend to come down in defence of jobs: their constituents' and, by implication, their own. The rest of us suspect that this might be a culpable fudge. A good rule of thumb is to remember that all jobs are done by human beings whose livelihoods matter as much to them as ours do to us. Sometimes it may be right to sacrifice those livelihoods on the altar of our enlightened principles, but we should exercise restraint in doing so.

CHEAP FOOD

As the wise have known for millennia, frugality is freedom. The less your material needs, the less beholden you need be to the rich and powerful. Extravagance, by contrast, requires wealth, which is rarely obtained without some form of moral compromise.

But what if the pursuit of frugality is itself compromising? In the age of giant supermarkets, this is often the case. The retail giants, competing for consumers who vote with their wallets for "value for money", use their irresistible bargaining power to beat down the prices of food producers. The long-term effect on the world's farmers and farming practices has been disastrous. So: the decent, liberal consumer should probably insist on buying only the most expensive organic and fair-trade products - the only drawback being that, in order to afford it, you might have to go and work for a ruthless, asset-stripping, multinational investment bank.

INTERNATIONALISM

We believe in engaging with the wider world. More than this: we believe that to spend all our lives within our own little country, never broadening our minds by exploring other cultures and nations and discovering other ways of life, would be criminally insular.

But we are also aware of a problem: that long-distance air travel is a major contributor to climate change and global warming. The world would have a more secure future if we all stayed at home and lived within our own local horizons. So what should the cosmopolitanly inclined, ecologically aware liberal do? Answer: give up most long-distance travel (although perhaps not for another year or so) and use the internet instead.

LIBERTY vs LICENCE

The archetype of all liberal dilemmas. In a perfectly free society, I should be allowed to do whatever I like. But so should my neighbour, whose tastes for sadistic violence and deafening music are incompatible with my taste for peace and quiet. Can these irreconcilables be reconciled?

There are several current versions of this dilemma, each involving a different facet of the core liberal belief in freedom. For example: freedom of speech (should gangsta rappers be allowed to preach homophobia and violence against women?); freedom of political belief (should voting for a particular party - such as the BNP - disqualify people from certain kinds of employment, such as teaching, the police or the Civil Service?); freedom of assembly (should al-Muhajiroun be prevented from celebrating the anniversary of the attacks of 11 September 2001?).

The classic liberal answer is that, as John Stuart Mill put it in 1859, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others". More simply still: society should restrain its members' freedoms only as a last resort; and every activity should be assumed permissible - whether or not it is desirable - unless there is overwhelming reason to believe that other people are unduly harmed by it.

MINORITIES

Gay people, people of limited stature, Romanies, Zanzibari asylum-seekers: all such minorities are, clearly, entitled not only to equal rights, but to equality of respect. In other words, we should recognise and value each one of them as an individual human being, rather than ascribing generalised attributes to them as a class (eg, they're all this, or they all do that). The question for liberals is: do you extend the same respect to all such groups - toffs, for example? Or are you happy to pillory these as a class - as inbred, pampered, public school-educated retards who "all" spend their ill-gotten inherited riches on quaffing champagne and murdering furry mammals, and who probably condone physical attacks on Parliament? Do you think their interests deserve equal consideration in the political process? If not, perhaps your liberal credentials are due for a check-up.

JUSTICE vs FORGIVENESS

Obviously, there are some longstanding crimes that cry out for justice: Bloody Sunday, for example, or the murder of Pat Finucane. In other cases - often relating to other killings in Ulster during the Troubles - there is clearly a need to forgive and forget. Quite how you distinguish one kind of crime from the other is, for many of us, a bit of a mystery. But we'll let you know if we detect a pattern.

LIBERTY vs SECURITY

If you live in times when unprecedented numbers of fanatics have the means, motive and opportunity to inflict catastrophic damage on free societies, extending unlimited liberty to such fanatics is tantamount to consenting to the extinction of such societies. Then again, if you allow the first principles of liberalism and democracy to be overruled in pursuit of security (has anyone read the second part of the Civil Contingencies Bill?), you're arguably consenting to the same thing.

Another tricky one. Correct answer: reduce freedoms only when this action is absolutely and overwhelmingly necessary, and with the explicit awareness that such rights and liberties, once removed, are rarely restored.

UNWELCOME NEIGHBOURS

A large tract of land a few hundred yards from your idyllic home is taken over by travellers. The local authority does nothing to discourage them. In due course, the settlement grows and becomes established. There are constant problems of noise and mess. And - whether as a result or by coincidence - there is a marked increase in petty crime in the area. Are you justified in joining the local campaign to have them moved on?

In many such cases - a plan to build a hostel for reformed paedophiles near your home, for example, or a detention centre for asylum-seekers or young offenders - a good liberal would say no. But the ultimate question here is whether or not society has a duty to cater for the specific needs of this particular group of highly inconsiderate travellers. If you believe the answer is no, then there is no reason why you have a duty to accommodate them either. (Conversely, if you believe that society has a duty to rehabilitate offenders, or to deal efficiently with claims for asylum, then you cannot reasonably argue that the necessary facilities should be located somewhere, but not near you.)

If the facts support it, there is no moral objection to the argument that these are people whose demands on society are so unreasonable that there is no need for them to be accommodated anywhere, near or far. You may, however, feel uncomfortably nimbyish while making it.

ASYLUM

Do we have a duty both to grant asylum to, and to provide welfare for, every one of the billion-plus people in the world who live under tyrannical regimes? Should we pull up the drawbridge now? Somewhere in between these two extremes lies the reasonable liberal view: that a line has to be drawn somewhere; and that we should be both humane and efficient in our dealings with those on both sides of that line. But where should the line be drawn? That's part of your dilemma; as is the question of whether it is more important to be humane or to be efficient.

Bear in mind, though, that historically immigration has always been an economic benefit rather than a burden.

ELECTORAL REFORM

You don't believe in identity cards, or in the dilution of suspects' right to silence or trial by jury, or, for that matter, in illegal and imprudent wars of aggression launched on the basis of lies. None the less, to attempt to vote our ruling party out of power would almost certainly result in its replacement by another party, equally illiberal and equally committed, at the time, to pre-emptive war against Iraq.

What do you do (especially if, by and large, you sympathise with New Labour's professed social goals)? Do you "move on", as the cynical phrase has it, and give your electoral approval to the Government that took us to war? Do you dissociate yourself from it by voting for the pro-war Conservatives? Convince yourself that a Lib Dem vote will actually result in a government that is neither Labour nor Conservative? Abstain? Emigrate? Your guess is as good as ours. (But don't emigrate to the United States, or you'll face a similar dilemma over Ralph Nader.)

CONTACT WITH ROGUE STATES

We all believed in boycotting the old South Africa. We all believe - don't we? - that the model of ostracism was a more effective response to a vile regime than the model of constructive engagement (such as was used, for example, with Romania).

But are we still convinced that this is the case? Should our sportsmen boycott Zimbabwe? If so, what about Iran, or Syria? Or, for that matter, China? If it comes to that, what about those academics who advocate a boycott of Israel? Are they striking a blow for tolerance? Or merely indulging in the self-righteous pleasure that comes from censorious ganging-up on a defenceless few?

This issue was always more complicated than most liberals liked to pretend, and it hasn't got any simpler. Our tip: any engagement with other cultures is constructive - except possibly in southern Africa, or in cases where a once-respectable regime has only recently gone bad.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Sacha Baron Cohen makes you laugh - even in his post-Ali G incarnation as Borat Sagdiyev, the comedy Kazakh who says things such as "In Kazakhstan, the favourite hobbies are disco-dancing, archery, rape and table tennis".

But a spokesman for the Kazakh embassy denounces the comedian's act, saying that it amounts to offensive racist stereotyping. Do you dismiss his complaints as unsophisticated, reassuring yourself that Baron Cohen is being ironic and merely sending up those Americans who believe that Borat Sagdiyev is real? Or do you acknowledge, with shame, that what has been eliciting the belly laughs is essentially racist humour of the kind that's supposed to have been extinct for years? Another tricky one, this; but we suspect the Kazakhs are right.

ISLAM

Non-Muslim liberals generally believe that we should extend respect and understanding towards the teachings and values of Islam. But what should they make of those teachings - about women, about homosexuality, about infidels and about freedom of theological, philosophical and literary debate - that appear to be in direct conflict with liberal values? Should they stand up robustly for the values of secular tolerance? Should they extend to the imams the same cynicism with which they habitually approach the Christian clergy? Or should they seek a "third way" that somehow reconciles permissive secularism with proscriptive religious doctrine?

Your answer will probably depend on the extent to which you see religion as, ultimately, a force for good or a force for evil. When making your mind up, however, it is worth bearing in mind two things.

First: the struggle between tolerance and intolerance goes on within Islam as well as around it; and the efforts of Muslim liberals (such as the Nobel peace prize-winner Shirin Ebadi) are not helped by the tendency of non-Muslims to behave as if the only voice of Islam that mattered were that of the reactionaries.

The other thing to remember is that you could have a similar debate about Roman Catholicism, born-again Protestantism, hard-core Hinduism and just about any formal religion except, possibly, wishy-washy Anglicanism. It's just that we don't.

HUMANITARIAN WAR

Perhaps too big a chestnut to be cracked properly in an exercise as glib as this. But the dilemma is worth mentioning, because it so frequently presents itself in this age of 24-hour instant global news. Its essence is obvious: is it worse to "look the other way" when atrocities not of our making are being committed in faraway lands - or to intervene in that arrogant, neo-imperialist way that all too often inflames not only those on the receiving end, but also vast swathes of hitherto neutral local and international opinion.

Bear in mind that whichever option you choose, the liberal media will castigate you. (Journalists are traditionally exempt from the duty of moral consistency.) Bear in mind, too, that the consequences of military intervention may be quite different from those envisaged before the event, and that they may continue to be felt for years after the media have officially deemed the episode closed. (Kosovo and the 1991 Gulf War are two good examples.)

There's no obvious answer to the dilemma, except to say that, if you come down against military intervention, you should perhaps go easy on blaming the West for failing to prevent the rest of the world's man-made catastrophes.

CHECKS AND BALANCES

We don't, obviously, believe in monarchy, or in hereditary peers. But does that mean we're happy to entrust our liberties to the unchecked power of the Commons and the party machines that control it? Probably not. What, then, should we do? Should we stick up for the rights of the hereditaries? Campaign for a proper constitution? Attempt to limit the power of the ruling party through lobbying and civil disobedience? Answer: it doesn't really matter. The ruling party machines hold all the cards, and they won't relinquish any power whatever we do.

OBEDIENCE

Some of the decisions Parliament makes on our behalf are wiser than others. How bound by the least wise of them should decent citizens consider themselves? Consider two recent examples: the decision to ban fox-hunting, and the decision to go to war with Iraq. In the former case, most of us probably feel that, whatever arguments might be made against the ban (see "Liberty vs Licence", above), the law, once made, should be observed, and our elected representatives should be free from physical harassment by those who object to their legislation. But what about the latter case? Or what if, in some similar, future scenario, you found yourself required to take an active part in an ill-advised military adventure that you considered illegal and immoral? What would your duty be then? The received wisdom ­ which we see no reason to dispute ­ is that there comes a point when your absolute moral duties override your duty of obedience. The difficulty lies in deciding where that point comes ­ but it should probably be a long, long way down the line. If we want to live in a democracy, we should play by the rules even when they don't suit us. (Then again, if we'd all chained ourselves to Buckingham Palace the day they started bombing Baghdad, who knows how many lives we could have saved?)