The Responsive
Communitarian Platform[1].
Platform: “We must insist once again that
bringing children into the world entails a moral responsibility to provide, not
only material necessities, but also moral education and character formation.
Moral education is not a task that can be delegated to baby
sitters, or even professional child-care centers. It requires close bonding of
the kind that typically is formed only with parents, if it is formed at all.
Fathers and mothers, consumed by “making it” and consumerism,
or preoccupied with personal advancement, who come home too late and too tired
to attend to the needs of their children, cannot discharge their most
elementary duty to their children and their fellow citizens.” (Start With the
Family)
Brian: Firstly, parents are usually the
ones with the closest sympathetic bonds to their children and the ones with the
greatest selfish interest in seeing their children thrive both materially and
psychologically (if their children thrive, the parents will not have to support
them as long, and maybe the children can even support the parents in their old
age). On the basis of these strong inducements to care about their children,
either they will care deeply about their children (most parents) or, for
whatever reason, they will not. Either way, pronouncements about parents’
‘moral responsibility’ to raise their children are futile. It will either be
preaching to the choir (most parents) or it will fall on deaf ears (a minority
of parents).
Secondly, what is this moral education that you speak of, and
what makes every parent qualified for it? What if the parents are ignorant or
despicable people, how could they contribute to moral education or character
formation? In fact, it is highly possible that child care professionals, in
accordance with the principles of specialization and the division of labor,
would be more qualified to give the children a ‘moral education’, whatever that
entails. These professionals could well be more knowledgeable about the
relevant subjects (child psychology for instance) and could be more empathetic
to children than the parents are.
Thirdly, this idea that parents have some kind of ‘civic
duty’ to raise their children in a specified way is a dangerous one. Who is to
determine what an ‘acceptable’ way of raising children is? In order to be
‘acceptable’ to the ‘community’, should the children be raised as religious or
as atheists? Libertarians or socialists? Believers in individual responsibility
or in community responsibility? Should they be raised to be good at math or to
be good at history? Should they be allowed to play violent video games and
watch violent movies? Should sex be discussed with them or not? Should they be
encouraged to be thinkers or encouraged to be doers? I could go on and on, and
the combinations and permutations would be virtually endless. To vest the power
to determine these things in the ‘community’ would be totalitarianism,
something that I am extremely uncomfortable with, especially given the dubious
quality of most ‘community-based’ decision-making processes.
Platform: “We strongly urge that all
educational institutions, from kindergartens to universities, recognize and
take seriously the grave responsibility to provide moral education. Suggestions
that schools participate actively in moral education are often opposed. The
specter of religious indoctrination is quickly evoked, and the question is
posed: “Whose morals are you going to teach?”
Our response is straightforward: we ought to teach those
values Americans share, for example, that the dignity of all persons ought to
be respected, that tolerance is a virtue and discrimination abhorrent, that
peaceful resolution of conflicts is superior to violence, that generally
truth-telling is morally superior to lying, that democratic government is
morally superior to totalitarianism and authoritarianism, that one ought to
give a day’s work for a day’s pay, that saving for one’s own and one’s country’s
future is better than squandering one’s income and relying on others to attend
to one’s future needs.” (Schools – The Second Line of Defense)
Brian: Let’s go over this catalogue one by
one.
1. “the dignity of all persons ought to be respected”: Sounds
good, but what exactly does it mean? Is a rich person’s dignity still being
respected when they are forced to give away half of their income to the
government, whether they personally support this policy or not? Is the dignity
of an air traveller being respected when they are forced to go through a metal
detector, take off their shoes, and have their bags searched by security
personnel? Is the dignity of a car driver being respected when they are forced
by law to wear a seatbelt, because it is assumed that they are too stupid to
take reasonable safety precautions themselves? If the answer to these
questions, and many other similar ones, is yes, then dignity would appear to be
a pretty empty concept. If no, then teaching this moral postulate would involve
the ‘moral teacher’ taking some pretty controversial policy stances and teaching
them to their students as moral truths.
2. “tolerance is a virtue and discrimination abhorrent”:
Tolerance, of what exactly? Of other people’s lifestyle choices? It can’t be
that because there are laws banning the use of many recreational drugs and
heavy discriminatory taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Of other people’s
financial decisions? It can’t be that because a large portion of people’s
income is taken away from them through coerced taxation levies, and hence they
are not free to spend that income as they choose. Of people’s political views?
Only partially, because while people are generally left free to express their
views, at the end of the day the favored policies of the majority are forcibly
imposed on the minority. And how about discrimination? Can’t I legitimately
discriminate when it comes to choosing who I want to associate with? I don’t
want to be friendly with just anyone, only with carefully selected people who I
get along with. While this postulate is probably intended to be taken in a
narrower sense, the point is that these concepts are very fluid, and can be
extended or narrowed relatively easily, presumably at the discretion of this ‘moral
teacher’ we are talking about.
3. “peaceful resolution of conflicts is superior to violence”:
Add ‘other things equal’, and then it is a good principle. Not all conflicts
can be satisfactorily resolved by peaceful means alone though. If a mugger
points a gun at you and says: ‘Give me all your money or I’ll shoot you in the
head’, the peaceful resolution of this conflict would be to hand over all your
money. And yet, I think a lot of people would justifiably prefer, if they had
the chance, to defend themselves against this mugging, or if they couldn’t,
would prefer it if the police used violence to apprehend the mugger and return
the money.
4. “generally truth-telling is morally superior to lying”:
This is a sound principle because of the word ‘generally’. And yet, this also
makes it a complicated and ambiguous principle. When is lying morally
justified? Is lying on your tax return morally justified if you believe that
the government has no moral right to your money? When are ‘white lies’, lies
told to save someone you care about from unnecessary suffering or anxiety,
morally justified? If a ‘moral teacher’ were to take positions on such
questions, then they would definitely be stepping outside of the boundaries of ‘values
that all Americans share’.
5. “democratic government is morally superior to
totalitarianism and authoritarianism”: Really? How about the belief that the
moral status of a government depends more on the content of its policies than
on its method of ruler selection, implying that a good authoritarian government
(Singapore’s for instance) could well be morally superior to a bad democratic
government (Greece’s for instance)? Is this belief absurd and damnable and not
held by any American? I think not.
6. “one ought to give a day’s work for a day’s pay”: Ok, so receiving
welfare payments is morally wrong? Obviously this view is not shared by all Americans.
7. “saving for one’s own and one’s country’s future is better
than squandering one’s income and relying on others to attend to one’s future
needs.”: Saving is morally superior to consumption and ought to be encouraged?
Great, tell it to all the Keynesian economists and policy makers who denigrate
thrift and seek to encourage consumption. One shouldn’t rely on others to
attend to one’s future needs? Great, then Social Security and Medicare have no
moral legitimacy. And yet, it seems exceedingly obvious that these positions
are not held universally by all Americans.
In general, I think that this communitarian desire to try to
come up with ‘Shared Values’ for the whole society is quixotic and hopeless.
Either these supposed ‘Shared Values’ are interpreted in such a way as to
render them so vague as to be meaningless and without use for practical life, or
they are interpreted in such a way as to render them controversial and no
longer universally ‘shared’. As such, like it or not, there will always be an
element of ‘moral indoctrination’ in any instance of ‘moral education’.
Platform: “National and local service, as well
as volunteer work, is desirable to build and express a civil commitment. Such
activities, bringing together people from different backgrounds and enabling
and encouraging them to work together, build community and foster mutual
respect and tolerance.” (A Matter of Orientation)
Brian: Well and good, but why does it have
to be unpaid work in order to achieve these positive things? Paid work
expresses a ‘civil commitment’, it indicates that the worker is willing to
contribute something valuable to society before taking something valuable out
of it in return. Paid work brings together people from different backgrounds,
sometimes more so than local community work. It is not true that local
community work environments are necessarily more diverse than professional work
environments, far from it. Paid work ‘builds community’, the bonds between
co-workers are often stronger than the bonds between people from the same local
geographical community. Paid work ‘fosters mutual respect and tolerance’,
people must respect and tolerate other employees and act professionally, or
they will be at risk of being fired for disrupting workplace relations. I think
that the communitarian lionization of voluntary work as against paid work is mostly
unjustified.
Platform: “Paying one’s taxes, encouraging
others to pay their fair share, and serving on juries are fully obligatory. One
of the most telling ills of our time is the expectation of many Americans that
they are entitled to ever more public services without paying for them (as
reflected in public opinion polls that show demands to slash government and
taxes but also to expand practically every conceivable government function). We
all take for granted the right to be tried before a jury of our peers, but, all
too often we are unwilling to serve on juries ourselves.” (Duties to the
Polity)
Brian: Ok. What if someone does not believe
that they are entitled, nor do they want, any public services besides law and
police services? Can they then legitimately assess themselves at a far lower
tax rate than the official rate? What about if we are perfectly content being
tried by a judge alone rather than by a jury? Can we then legitimately pass on
compulsory jury duty?
I think that we only have a duty to do something if we
explicitly, voluntarily agreed to do it, whether in exchange for something or
not. For government-imposed ‘duties’, this is not the case. In this case,
‘privileges’ (services due) and ‘duties’ are set unilaterally by one party, the
government. If the government determined that they would give me an orange, and
that because of giving me this orange, I must serve as a soldier in Afghanistan
for two years in order to discharge my ‘duty’, I would consider it to be involuntary
slavery, not the discharging of some kind of sacred ‘duty’.
Platform: “Campaign contributions to members
of Congress and state legislatures, speaking fees, and bribes have become so
pervasive that in many areas of public policy and on numerous occasions the
public interest is ignored as legislators pay off their debts to special
interests…
To establish conditions under which elected officials will be
able to respond to the public interest, to the genuine needs of all citizens,
and to their own consciences requires that the role of private money in public
life be reduced as much as possible.” (Cleaning Up the Polity)
Brian: Unfortunately, even if “the role of
private money in public life” was significantly reduced, politicians would
still be beholden to powerful special interest groups, not “to their own
consciences” or “to the genuine needs of all citizens”. Firstly, there would
remain the notorious ‘revolving door’ of employment between large companies and
the government agencies that supposedly ‘regulate’ them. Large companies like
hiring former officials of the relevant regulatory agency so that they can know
the ins and outs of and be on the good side of that agency. The regulatory
agencies like hiring people from large companies in the industry because of
their knowledge of the industry and connections within the industry. Officials
in the agency might look forward to holding a lucrative position in that large
company in the future, while others who used to work for that company might
look favorably on their former workplace. Either way, it is likely that such
officials will be biased in favor of the large company in question, and this
will affect policy-making. Notable revolving door arrangements exist between
Goldman Sachs and the Securities Exchange Commission, and between Monsanto and
the Food and Drug Administration, among others.
Secondly, special interest groups don’t just receive their
clout through money, but also through their power to persuade large numbers of
voters to vote for the candidate of the group’s choice. Labor unions,
professional associations, chambers of commerce, various single issue advocacy
groups, and even local or regional interests themselves, constitute powerful
special interest groups who would remain disproportionately powerful even
without the direct infusion of money into public life. Most of these groups do
not and do not try to represent the ‘general interests’ of citizens or of ‘the
commonweal’. They represent particular interests, the kind interests which most
voters base their votes on due to the complexity of societal and political
life. A politician who tried to respond to an abstract, general ‘public
interest’ or to their own consciences would invariably end up alienating the
special interest groups whose support they need in order to survive
politically.
Thus, while eliminating private money from public life would
change the relative power of different special interest groups in politics, it
would not reduce the dependence of politicians on such groups in general.
Platform: “As we see it, responsibilities are
anchored in community. Reflecting the diverse moral voices of their citizens,
responsive communities define what is expected of people; they educate their
members to accept these values; and they praise them when they do and frown
upon them when they do not.” (A Question of Responsibility)
Brian: This seems like an appropriate
moment to pose the million dollar question: what constitutes a community and
how does one become a member of one? Can your family be your community? How
about your city block? Neighborhood? Is it based on the arbitrarily defined
territorial political units of municipalities, provinces/states, and
nation-states? How about a religious community? Ethnic community? Professional
or corporate community? Community of shared interests (activity clubs, online
forums)? Can the whole world be your community? Geographically non-contiguous
parts of the world?
It is important that we answer this question clearly and
unambiguously if we are to assign moral and political statuses to community
groupings. If more than one of these kinds of communities are recognized as ‘true
communities’, worthy of a moral and/or political status, than what happens if
these communities demand different things of the individual? For instance, what
happens if the nation-state community demands that the individual puts the
interests of that nation-state above all, while the world community demands
that the individual puts the interests of the world above all, including the
interests of the nation-state? What if the family wants the individual to go
abroad so that he can make more money and send some home to them, while the
local community wants the individual to stay and contribute professionally to
the local community? What if your religious community wants you to not
associate with homosexual people, while your nation-state says that such discriminatory
behavior is repugnant and punishable? Such possible examples are virtually
endless. The point is that in order to propound a coherent ideology, communitarians
must designate which communities’ rulings are to be supreme to the individual
in any particular field, and they must justify their choice logically. I have
yet to come across something like this in any communitarian writing, probably
because it is an impossible task.
[1]The
Communitarian Network, “The Responsive Communitarian Platform”, http://communitariannetwork.org/about-communitarianism/responsive-communitarian-platform/
No comments:
Post a Comment