Is It Moral for Law to Require Self-Development?

Introduction: Law, Morality, and Self-Development

"Political theory is a branch of moral philosophy, which starts from the discovery, or application, of moral notions in the sphere of political relations." This statement, drawn from Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty", captures a foundational view of the relationship between law and human development. It is morally acceptable for the law to require people to do things for their own self-development. Requirements such as mandating that children attend school, requiring high schools to offer core curriculum courses, or requiring institutions to obtain relevant certifications are all morally acceptable laws. Although society overall benefits from the self-development of its constituents, the world benefits further as a more educated population continues to drive economic prosperity (Berlin, 2000).

Few would argue against the merits of self-development and its obvious advantages. However, many believe it is up to the individual alone to determine the course of personal development. Within a vacuum this position seems plausible — America, the world's most powerful country, was founded on liberty. Yet when set against the backdrop of rapid global change and economic competition, this purely individualist theory loses its force. Morally acceptable laws not only promote self-development but also protect society as a whole. Globalization has intensified competition from internationally dynamic institutions. American manufacturing is losing competitiveness. Children are falling behind in math and science scores compared to their counterparts in other nations. All of these trends are, in some way, connected to the question of whether laws should require people to invest in their own development.