I haven’t been posting much, and I plan on keeping this one short too.<\/p>\n
In previous posts I have developed a four-fold taxonomy of moral discourse and I would like to basically apply this same taxonomy to the sources of our stewardships. \u00a0From what source do we derive our shared ideas regarding the boundaries of our responsibilities and freedoms?\u00a0 Here are four non-exhaustive and non-exclusive options:<\/p>\n
1.We inherit our stewardships\u00a0from the past.<\/p>\n
This one is generally associated with a Burkean kind of conservativism. \u00a0This idea correlates to the inheritance of property, nobility, even parenthood. \u00a0This source is alive and well within the church today as can be seen in our attempts to situate ourselves within a patriarchal priesthood by means of genealogical research. \u00a0The parallels between this and the feudal inheritance of nobility should be pretty obvious. \u00a0In this case, my authority is legitimized in terms of a rich traditions, ancestors and covenants of the past. \u00a0Indeed, many people in the early church rejected Joseph Smith’s right to radically alter the traditions that they had inherited form the past, including those found within the Bible.<\/p>\n
2. Our stewardships\u00a0are dictated to us by authority figures.<\/p>\n
This one is generally more associated with a continental royalism that eventually found expression in the form of Fascism, but also has many contemporary expressions as well. \u00a0These freedoms and responsibilities are legitimized in terms of the person who assigned them. \u00a0Assigning chores, hiring employees, choosing jurors, choosing successors, the power of attorney, and receiving callings within the church are all examples of this. \u00a0It is tempting to think that this\u00a0form involves an infinite regress, but this is not the case; “because X said so!” stops the regress in practice. \u00a0In such cases, my stewardship is legitimized by the claim that\u00a0I represent that higher authority, it being a form of delegation.<\/p>\n
3. Our stewardships flow from our individual experience and competencies.<\/p>\n
This one has a pretty interesting (and short) history. \u00a0It flows from the idea of maker’s knowledge in that through the very act of mixing one’s labor with materials one comes to have both knowledge of and sovereignty over the product of my labor. \u00a0This is famously found within Locke’s philosophy but Marx’s idea of exploitation relies upon it as well. \u00a0Bentham and Paley’s utilitarianism definitely traces this conceptual thread as well. \u00a0This source of stewardship is somewhat ambiguous within the Mormon tradition. \u00a0On the one hand, we are completely free to live our lives how we see fit and we are also promised that the Lord will not command us in all things. \u00a0On the other hand, we often see many of the more educated trying to exercise stewardship along the lines of their own competencies in the name of “rationality”, “efficiency” or some other modern value. \u00a0Indeed, it seems almost axiomatic to our modern sensibilities that if we “do not know what we are talking about” then we ought to have no voice on the matter at all. \u00a0Ultimately, this form of legitimation is an appeal to “nature” since it is through experience and expertise (the two words are VERY related) that I come to know and control\u00a0that part of nature and its\u00a0laws within my stewardship.<\/p>\n
4. We have stewardship to the extent that it effects us.<\/p>\n
This one is most associated with participatory democracy as found in Rousseau, Kant and collectivist thinking in the self-legislation of the group plays a major role. \u00a0This is the idea that if it affects me, regardless of whether I’m qualified or not, I should have a say it. \u00a0Many revolutionaries appeal to this in their claims to represent “the people” which is basically a more inclusive version of the second form. \u00a0A bridge between this source of stewardship and the third can be found in John Stuart Mill’s modification of Bentham’s utilitarianism when the former claimed that we are free not just over that which we have personal knowledge or property, but to the extent that our actions\u00a0effect others (each man were convinced that\u00a0their own version would lead to the best consequences). \u00a0The principle of common consent \u00a0within the church definitely seems to be a rather limited expression of this form of legitimation. \u00a0Other times, however, this right to withhold consent is expanded in the form of social activism whereby pressure is democratically brought against the current leadership and policies of the church.<\/p>\n
Obviously these sources are mixed and matched within pretty much any culture worthy of the name. \u00a0There is also the possibility that I may have missed some other source of stewardship.