Moral freedom or moral anarchy?:

Hayek's conception of the role and place of moral values and
responsibility in an individualist society in The Road to Serfdom.

Hayek's The road to Serfdom was written from an unapologetic individualist
perspective, where the freedom of the individual was central to his model of social
relations. This essay analyses Hayek's conception of the role and place of moral values
and individual responsibility in his preferred model of individual relations. Analysed is
Hayek's belief that morality in the form of collective morality does not exist, only the moral
values of the individual are real. As such the individual, not society, is to decide on what is
right and wrong. Also analysed is Hayek's belief that an individual's moral responsibility for
their actions is to be left to their own conscience, so that only the Rule of Law is to be used
to regulate an individual's actions. As will be shown, Hayek's conception of society is one
verging on an extreme form individualism.

Hayek argues that as modern society has developed and evolved the moral base or set
of values of society have declined or fragmented. Hayek writes, " . . . up to the present the
growth of civilisation has been accompanied by a steady diminution of the sphere in which
individual actions are bound by fixed rules."1 The sense here is that Hayek believes that a
liberal and capitalist society causes, or creates, the conditions for a reduced number of
fixed rules an individual must obey, in particular those based on a moral value basis, which
therefore causes a fragmentation in the value base of society. Moral values become less
the values of a society, imposed on the individual, being replaced instead by the values of
the individual. Hayek argues:

What our generation is in danger of forgetting is not only that morals are of necessity a
phenomenon of individual conduct, but also that they can exist only in the sphere in
which the individual is free to decide for himself and called upon voluntarily to sacrifice
personal advantage to the observance of a moral rule. Only where we ourselves are
responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them, has our decision moral
value.2

In effect, what Hayek is arguing is that morality is created by the actions of the individual,
not by the collective experience and requirements of the whole of society, and where
morality only has any value at all when it is based on the individual choosing to voluntarily
submit to a particular moral standard. So morality as a form of societal values does not
exist for Hayek, at least not in his preferred model of social relations.

Yet such a perception of the place and role of morals values in society raises
difficulties. If morality is to be the choice of the individual in isolation, and where the
individual has the right to submit to a social standard or not, then what happens to a society
when most of the people choose not to submit, choosing instead to lead their own life
entirely as they please? In fact, in such a society anything even approaching a set of social
standards or values would be impossible to determine as there would be no consensus on
what such values should be. Such a society would be little more than a moral vacuum,
where the determination of what is right and what is wrong would be left to the individual to
decide for him or her self according to their needs or desires, irrespective of any existing
moral basis of society, with the only restraint being the requirement for individuals to accept
responsibility for their actions. In fact, Hayek sees morality in just such a light when he
writes:

Outside the sphere of individual responsibility there is neither goodness nor badness,
neither opportunity for moral merit nor the chance of proving one's conviction by
sacrificing one's desires to what one thinks right.3

In other words, as there can be no true sense of right and wrong in terms of collective
morality, only moral values as determined by the individual for their own purposes, then
there is no reason why individuals should sacrifice their desires and wants for any ideas of
the common good of society. In fact, in such an individualist conception of values there
would be no place for a sense of the common good; it simply does not exist.

Yet, Hayek goes even further in removing morality and values from society and placing
them in the hands of the individual. Hayek argues that moral values even at the individual
level are not fixed or permanent, but are in fact in a state of permanent change. He writes:

Freedom to order our own conduct . . . is the air in which alone moral sense grows and in
which moral values are daily re-created in the free decision of the individual [emphasis
added].4

What Hayek is arguing here is that moral values can be re-created by the individual at any
time to suit their needs. If moral values are re-created daily by the free decisions of
individuals, and where there is no wider social sense of right or wrong attached to any
particular moral choice, then there is no reason why an individual could not choose to act in
a particular way and then choose the most appropriate moral argument to support such
actions. So not only is there no right and wrong morally, there is not even the need for
individuals to have a fixed set of values to order their lives. Moral values become little
more than a tool of justification for an individual seeking to serve their desires of the
moment.

For Hayek, a society where moral values are to be left entirely to the individual is
acceptable because the individual is to accept the full responsibility for their actions. But
this raises the question; who or what is the individual morally responsible to? To Hayek the
individual is to be morally responsible to themselves:

Responsibility, not to a superior, but to one's conscience, . . . [and the willingness] to
bear the consequences of one's own decision, are the very essence of any morals which
deserve the name.5

The problem here is obvious; if there is no right or wrong morally, then how can an
individual be held responsible for his actions, when he can choose what moral standard
suits him for any particular decision?

Hayek's answer to this is to rely on the Rule of Law, which is to be based on a set of
basic and limited "General rules" to oversee and regulate the conduct of individuals, not
morally based "specific orders" that regulate all aspects of people's lives.6 For Hayek, a
Rule of law which is free of moral values becomes "the legal embodiment of freedom."7 So
Hayek's conception of individualist morality sees society regulated less through social
values and more through the Rule of Law.

But the problem is that since Hayek sees the Rule of Law not as an instrument to
administer all aspects of society, but as a way of setting the basic environment for people to
act in, an environment that should be as free as possible, then the Rule of Law can at most
only replace in part the loss of a moral code for society. So that an individual becomes
responsible for their actions only in relation to a general set of laws which are designed to
provide only a minimalist structure to control peoples actions. In effect, the actions of
individuals are to be controlled, not by a standard set of moral rules inherent to the society
and the individual, in combination with the Rule of Law, but by the Rule of Law separately.
The Rule of Law, in effect, replaces moral law, and becomes the main, if not only,
acceptable instrument to regulate the actions of individuals.

However, what Hayek appears to have failed to recognise is that the Rule of Law itself
is based on a set of values, which by their very nature would have to impose this set of
values on the individual if it is to be able to function. The Rule of Law creates nothing less
than a set of social standards for the actions of the individual, and therefore determines a
framework for responsibility based on those values. Even a set of general rules would have
moral values inherent in them. Moreover, where there is no such thing as the collective
values of a society, then even the task of creating a set of general rules that all were
prepared to accept and follow would be a difficult task at best. Whereas, any Rule of Law
that was based on the removal of any inherent values would effectively cease to exist as a
Rule of Law, as a Rule of Law without a moral value base is a contradiction in terms. So
for Hayek, even though he does not appear to recognise it, there is a conflict between his
notion of there being no goodness or badness outside of individual responsibility, and the
inherent set of values in any Rule of Law which was to oversee individual responsibility, as
such a Rule of Law would by its very nature imply the need for a wider social distinction
between good and bad.

In conclusion, what Hayek is advocating is an extreme form of liberalism. What
becomes clear from the Road to Serfdom is that for Hayek the individual is supreme.
Nothing should be allowed to come between the individual and his freedom that is not
absolutely necessary. This includes any ideas of a collective social morality. Moral values,
in all its forms, is to be the preserve of the individual exclusively, and where the individual is
to be the judge of which moral values they are to observe at any particular time. So what is
left is a collection of individuals who's only restraint on their actions is a general and limited
Rule of Law that is to be free of moral values. Under such a Rule of Law ideas of right and
wrong would no longer be determined from a moral viewpoint, only from a value free legal
viewpoint, if such a thing is even possible.

The common good, and therefore society, does not exist in such a conception.
Without a set of collective values that all could recognise and at least in part believe in,
there would be no moral value basis or reference point for the creation of a common
identity among the individuals of the group. The only wider relationship the individual
would have to the group would be a temporary agreement to join forces in order to serve a
shared interest. Once that shared interest was served the relationship would end. In fact
the only thing that would connect the individuals to each other was that they were all living
under the same minimalist Rule of Law.

Such a situation would be the equivalent to a permanent state of virtual anarchy. What
Hayek seems to have missed is that without the inclusion of a set of collective values to help
order society, the Rule of Law would in all likelihood be called upon more and more to
bring order to society. It would then need to be expanded from a general set of rules into a
much more complex structure, which would by necessity take in questions of individual
moral values.

ENDNOTES:

1. F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, London: Routledge, 1997, p. 43.

2. Ibid., p. 156.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., p. 157.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., p. 57.

7. Ibid., p. 61.

-----------------------------------------------

REFERENCE:

Hayek, F. A. 1997. The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge.

-----------------------------------------------