2 Sovereign masters : Doom of Libertarian ethics

“Every law is an infraction of liberty” – Jeremy Bentham

I recently came to a shocking realization: a high percentage of atheists in Kerala lean towards libertarian ethics. No wonder they arrive at faulty conclusions like “reservation is wrong,” “free-market capitalism is ideal,” and “free speech should be absolute.” They’ve been following a flawed ethical theory all along.

Libertarianism, at its core, is vague and unclear about how ethical judgments are made in many real-world situations. Its foundational principle—that we shouldn’t intervene in someone’s freedom unless they intentionally cause aggression—might seem reasonable at first glance. However, this is not an absolute principle, as libertarians mistakenly believe. I’ll demonstrate this using 2 examples.

The Innocent Demon

Imagine a demon named ‘Bourg’ who is completely innocent and has no intention of harming anyone. Bourg lives a perfect, happy life, enjoying endless resources. However, Bourg’s existence comes with a horrifying consequence: millions of innocent children suddenly start experiencing unbearable agony. Their skin peels off, they live in constant, torturous pain, and their cries fill the streets.

There is one simple way to stop this: imprison Bourg in the capital palace. Doing so would restrict his freedom and diminish his happiness, but it would save millions of children from unimaginable suffering.

Libertarians, however, would argue against imprisoning Bourg, claiming it violates his freedom. According to them, the children’s agony, no matter how severe, cannot justify infringing on Bourg’s liberty.

If this is your position, I must question your moral compass. How can the freedom of one individual outweigh the suffering of million innocent children? Choosing to protect Bourg’s freedom over alleviating mass agony reveals a deep flaw in libertarian ethics.

Wake up to reality

Let’s turn to a real-world parallel: wealth inequality. In many societies, a small percentage of people control the majority of resources, while millions live in poverty, struggling for basic survival. Libertarians often oppose wealth redistribution, arguing that taking resources from the wealthy through taxation violates their property rights and freedom.

But consider the consequences of inaction. Without redistributive policies, millions are denied access to healthcare, education, and even food. This suffering is analogous to the children in the Bourg example—avoidable, yet perpetuated by prioritizing the rights of the few over the needs of the many. Most of the time real world demons are not even innocent .

The specifics of wealth redistribution may vary, but the principle remains the same: ethical decisions cannot rely solely on rigid ideals like individual liberty. They must also account for the real, tangible harm suffered by others.