The Myth of Principle

“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.” Groucho Marx

I am sure it will be clear that this post can be seen as a corollary of my last one: The Death of Honor.

“Principle” is another of those words that is used a great deal, but when I consider the context in which I hear it I almost always have to conclude that the speaker is a cynical liar or an idiot in need of a good dictionary. Alas, the former is usually the case. After all, the word itself is not a difficult one. It means simply an underlying rule - an inviolable guide by which actions may be measured. A principle is much like an axiom, but where an axiom is self-evidently and objectively true, a principle is a subjective evaluation of worth and importance. The first expresses the reality of substance; the second, of meaning.

Perhaps it is yet another manifestation of my growing crankiness as my years increase, but it ever more appears that people and organizations simply do not have any principles. That is not to say they don’t profess to have them. Almost every action ever taken that might offend someone is said to based on some principle. Likewise claims made to this or that favor. However, it seems to me that if one genuinely holds something as a principle it will be evident in all their actions and proclamations. One should be able to infer easily another’s principles by observing their behaviour and listenting to their words. Can a principle really be regarded as such if its application is inconsistent and arbitrary? I think not.

To me, the two most obvious illustrations of the principle myth are:

1. The Pro-Choice movement.
I think the statement “A woman’s right to choose follows logically and unavoidably from her inviolable right to control her own body.” would not meet with oppostition from Pro Choice activists. Setting aside for this discussion the obviously contentious question of the rights (if any) of the unborn, I would agree wholeheartedly with the latter part of that statement. However when it, or similar statements, are made by activists are they expressions of a principle, as they would have you believe? I do not think so. If they were, we would expect to see that principle applied universally in the life of the spokespeople and their colleagues, meaning those people would be compelled, indeed eager, to support the abolition of all victimless crime laws including those related to drugs, prostitution, labor standards and so forth, with the same vigor and determination they pursue “reproductive rights”. We see no such thing.

I have noticed that many activists avoid references to the “body” and talk of the aforementioned “reproductive rights”. My suspicion is that this finely tuned wording may well be a result of recognizing the inconsistency I speak of. But is this anything more than verbal legerdemain? Of course not. Rights over the womb but not the arm? Not the leg? The head? The potentially heroin-carrying veins? The notion that one could have rights regarding one part of the body but not others, is just plain silly. “Reproductive rights” is not a principle. It is the clever and cyncial avoidance of principle.

2. The support of Democracy.
It has long been assumed that the United States supports democracy anywhere and everywhere, and that its foreign policy is based in large part on that support. Those half a million personnel, 700 bases and trillion dollars worth of equipment, armaments and ordnance not on American soil must be out there for some good reason! Indeed, what was always a tacit assumption was given a clear voice in Bush’s second inaugural speech. The implicit principle is an easy one to see, understand and agree with: All people have a fundamental right to govern themselves. Fair enough. But, again, as appealing as it might be to see this as a guiding principle of America, how can it be so when those very same armaments, ordnance and personnel are, and always have been, used to support undemocratic governments such as that of Saudi Arabia? It can’t. It must be seen as what it is: smoke and mirros to get the great unwashed to support actions they might otherwise find objectionable..

These are “big” examples of mythical principle, but the mechanism is seen everywhere - from the parent admonishing a child with “do as I say, not as I do” to a boss mistreating employees to churches collecting money to minister to the poor while their bank accounts and art collections bulge to bursting, to “Don’t be Evil” Google caving in to Chinese censors.

Principle? That’s what you say to justify getting what you want to have or doing what you want to do.

Good old Groucho! His self deprecating humor so often contained universal truths and the quip above is certainly no exception.