First, anyone who is reading
Skinner would later write
Probably the most important consequence of the novelistic form of
Castle is unfortunately not the most level-headed of opponents, but he does have a set of clear arguments against Frazier's position. First, Castle is not willing to go along with Frazier's empirical approach to morality. The difference between right and wrong, in Castle's view, should be independent of one's goals and contexts. Thus, a society like Walden Two in which codes of conduct are formulated solely on the basis of their ability to contribute to happiness and productivity is inherently amoral, and therefore unsatisfactory. This same argument applies to Frazier's dismissal of freedom and democracy; any system that is based on the systematic control of one human being by another, Castle would say, devalues humanity itself.
These arguments may be convincing, but they don't point to flaws in Frazier's argument. Rather, they point to differences in basic assumptions about the nature of humanity and the value of human life. According to Frazier, the ultimate good is happiness, health, satisfying social connections, and so on; according to Castle, it is the freedom to make one's own definition of the ultimate good. This difference includes elements of the dichotomies between a bevy of "isms": communalism vs. individualism, empiricism vs. idealism, and communism vs, capitalism.