Full Version: Legislating Morality
As we all know, after the 2004 election, there was much talk about how the “moral values” voters swung the election in favor of George Bush. Additionally, many liberals are quick to accuse conservatives of trying to “legislate morality”. The idea continues to persist (in current politics and even on AD) that Conservatives and usually Christian conservatives are primarily the ones that seek to “legislate morality”.
In a recent AD thread, this perception was explored and challenged:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=158163
The question in that thread focused on what the phrase “legislating morality” means and whether a free society can be held to a moral standard. The questions garnered a lot of debate, but ultimately only managed to get everyone to agree that most laws seek to legislate morality in one way or another.
I would like to take that discussion in a more focused direction by looking at the views of a particular group called the Communitarian Network. Fifteen years ago, a group of scholars and academicians formed the Communitarian Network to explore and articulate a social philosophy that seeks to address the breakdown in the moral fabric of society .
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/about_us.html
The group is non-partisan and presents arguments on how the law can, and should, seek to “legislate morality”.
For someone like myself, who has fairly strong libertarian leanings, my initial reaction was somewhat negative. However, the Communitarian Network’s thoughts on this issue go outside the usual “paradigm” and are, I think, fresh and worthy of discussion.
I strongly suggest reading the following collection of pieces that presents a symposium on legislating morality:
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/legislating_morality.html
The Symposium tackles a number of the common arguments against legislating morality. The two most prevalent arguments (from both the liberal and conservative camps) can be broken down as follows:
(1) Legislating Morality relies too heavily on Religion and runs contrary to a pluralist society (from the liberal camp): Liberals usually bring up how those who seek to connect morality and law typically rely heavily on Religion. “They [liberals] say this is precisely the problem with asking the state to handle moral decisions: any effort to legislate morality will inevitably appeal to a set of beliefs that are meaningful only to a few. In a pluralistic culture like ours, that means any such effort amounts to a kind of cultural tyranny and is therefore bound to create more problems than it solves.” (link above) They point to Prohibition as an example of a vocal minority, “acting on its religious beliefs, [ and ] attempt[ing] to force a broad moral consensus where there was none to be had.”
(2) Legislating Morality relies too heavily on Big Government (from the conservative and libertarian camp): Conservatives and/or Libertarians do not believe that government is the proper means for addressing moral questions. While many are deeply concerned with the moral condition of our society, they argue that the institutions of American civil society--families, neighborhoods, and congregations, especially--are the best means through which we can effect change. Many conservatives even go so far as to argue that our contemporary problems flow from the fact that even these institutions (in the private sphere) have been undermined by pervasive Big Government.
The Communitarian network acknowledges that there is some truth in these criticisms—but goes on to argue:
Thus, they argue, not only should we legislate morality -- we have a civic duty to do so.
Of course, the BIG question is: How?
The paradigm prevalent today for “legislating morality” comes mainly from the Christian right. Conservative Christians are the first to see an inherent connection between law and morality and seek to realize that connection through relevant legislation. The problem is that they infuse their legislative initiatives with a morality that is articulated and understood in exclusively Christian terms
On the other hand, Liberals have not in any significant way, countered the message from the Christian Right with a model of how to “legislate morality”.
The Communitarian Network offers up a model for legislating morality that is much different from the current model embraced by Christian Conservatives.
Its core principle is that :
In other words—Civic Morality must be encouraged. Most importantly, the group emphasizes that we must reach agreement democratically as to what those moral principles (civic morality) are. Note that it does not require “consensus”—only democratic agreement.
Although it advocates the democratic resolution of what the core moral principles are—It also recognizes three very important limitations on “legislating morality”:
(1) The Futile Crusade: We cannot legislate to control an internal state of mind. In other words, if “morality” is understood as actions motivated by goodwill, it is beyond control of the state. Locke made this point when he said that: not only was the state not entitled to use its powers to achieve religious salvation for its citizens, but it could not accomplish that end even if it tried. The State simply cannot reach (and control) an individual’s internal motivations.
(2) Intrusion and Coercion: The State should not engage too coercively or intrusively in attempts to refashion citizens’ hearts and minds
(3) Controversial and Comprehensive moral and religious beliefs: The State cannot seek to enforce particular norms of good behavior predicated primarily on “comprehensive” religious beliefs.
The group provides examples of legislation that would pass their test and legislation that would fail it:
Civil Rights Act of 1964 passes the test. It meets the primary objective of defending fundamental moral principles that lie at the heart of democratic values and practices. It does not violate the three limitations. Although opponents at the time, raised the specter of how government “cannot legislate morality” the legislation itself did not mandate a particular individual state of mind or attitude. Instead, it required that people treat other citizens in a manner commensurate with their status as rights bearing civic equals.
Laws that criminalize sexually immoral actions between consenting adults would fail. Although these laws have been democratically enacted—they fail on all three counts when it comes to limitations on legislating morality: they are largely ineffectual (futile); they are improperly intrusive into people’s private lives; and they seek to impose comprehensive religious beliefs.
Questions for Debate:
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
(2) Does the Communitarian Network present a model for legislating morality that is acceptable to Liberals/Democrats?
(3) Do you accept or reject the Communitarian Network's model for legislating morality?
In a recent AD thread, this perception was explored and challenged:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=158163
The question in that thread focused on what the phrase “legislating morality” means and whether a free society can be held to a moral standard. The questions garnered a lot of debate, but ultimately only managed to get everyone to agree that most laws seek to legislate morality in one way or another.
I would like to take that discussion in a more focused direction by looking at the views of a particular group called the Communitarian Network. Fifteen years ago, a group of scholars and academicians formed the Communitarian Network to explore and articulate a social philosophy that seeks to address the breakdown in the moral fabric of society .
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/about_us.html
The group is non-partisan and presents arguments on how the law can, and should, seek to “legislate morality”.
For someone like myself, who has fairly strong libertarian leanings, my initial reaction was somewhat negative. However, the Communitarian Network’s thoughts on this issue go outside the usual “paradigm” and are, I think, fresh and worthy of discussion.
I strongly suggest reading the following collection of pieces that presents a symposium on legislating morality:
http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/legislating_morality.html
The Symposium tackles a number of the common arguments against legislating morality. The two most prevalent arguments (from both the liberal and conservative camps) can be broken down as follows:
(1) Legislating Morality relies too heavily on Religion and runs contrary to a pluralist society (from the liberal camp): Liberals usually bring up how those who seek to connect morality and law typically rely heavily on Religion. “They [liberals] say this is precisely the problem with asking the state to handle moral decisions: any effort to legislate morality will inevitably appeal to a set of beliefs that are meaningful only to a few. In a pluralistic culture like ours, that means any such effort amounts to a kind of cultural tyranny and is therefore bound to create more problems than it solves.” (link above) They point to Prohibition as an example of a vocal minority, “acting on its religious beliefs, [ and ] attempt[ing] to force a broad moral consensus where there was none to be had.”
(2) Legislating Morality relies too heavily on Big Government (from the conservative and libertarian camp): Conservatives and/or Libertarians do not believe that government is the proper means for addressing moral questions. While many are deeply concerned with the moral condition of our society, they argue that the institutions of American civil society--families, neighborhoods, and congregations, especially--are the best means through which we can effect change. Many conservatives even go so far as to argue that our contemporary problems flow from the fact that even these institutions (in the private sphere) have been undermined by pervasive Big Government.
The Communitarian network acknowledges that there is some truth in these criticisms—but goes on to argue:
QUOTE
No social order is or could be ethically vacuous, and a liberal and democratic society should not let its commitment to liberty and tolerance lead it into a general nihilism that undermines its constitutive purposes.
Thus, they argue, not only should we legislate morality -- we have a civic duty to do so.
Of course, the BIG question is: How?
The paradigm prevalent today for “legislating morality” comes mainly from the Christian right. Conservative Christians are the first to see an inherent connection between law and morality and seek to realize that connection through relevant legislation. The problem is that they infuse their legislative initiatives with a morality that is articulated and understood in exclusively Christian terms
On the other hand, Liberals have not in any significant way, countered the message from the Christian Right with a model of how to “legislate morality”.
The Communitarian Network offers up a model for legislating morality that is much different from the current model embraced by Christian Conservatives.
Its core principle is that :
QUOTE
A democratic society should not hesitate to use the force of law to defend the fundamental moral standards intrinsic to a liberal democratic society.
In other words—Civic Morality must be encouraged. Most importantly, the group emphasizes that we must reach agreement democratically as to what those moral principles (civic morality) are. Note that it does not require “consensus”—only democratic agreement.
Although it advocates the democratic resolution of what the core moral principles are—It also recognizes three very important limitations on “legislating morality”:
(1) The Futile Crusade: We cannot legislate to control an internal state of mind. In other words, if “morality” is understood as actions motivated by goodwill, it is beyond control of the state. Locke made this point when he said that: not only was the state not entitled to use its powers to achieve religious salvation for its citizens, but it could not accomplish that end even if it tried. The State simply cannot reach (and control) an individual’s internal motivations.
(2) Intrusion and Coercion: The State should not engage too coercively or intrusively in attempts to refashion citizens’ hearts and minds
(3) Controversial and Comprehensive moral and religious beliefs: The State cannot seek to enforce particular norms of good behavior predicated primarily on “comprehensive” religious beliefs.
The group provides examples of legislation that would pass their test and legislation that would fail it:
Civil Rights Act of 1964 passes the test. It meets the primary objective of defending fundamental moral principles that lie at the heart of democratic values and practices. It does not violate the three limitations. Although opponents at the time, raised the specter of how government “cannot legislate morality” the legislation itself did not mandate a particular individual state of mind or attitude. Instead, it required that people treat other citizens in a manner commensurate with their status as rights bearing civic equals.
Laws that criminalize sexually immoral actions between consenting adults would fail. Although these laws have been democratically enacted—they fail on all three counts when it comes to limitations on legislating morality: they are largely ineffectual (futile); they are improperly intrusive into people’s private lives; and they seek to impose comprehensive religious beliefs.
Questions for Debate:
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
(2) Does the Communitarian Network present a model for legislating morality that is acceptable to Liberals/Democrats?
(3) Do you accept or reject the Communitarian Network's model for legislating morality?
QUOTE
Conservatives and usually Christian conservatives are primarily the ones that seek to “legislate morality”.
Not exactly; just their definition of ‘morals’.And the phrase “Christian Conservatives” is incorrect, you cannot hold the views the Religious Right does and still follow what Christ actually taught; Jesus was a Liberal. Just because some have hijacked a Religion does not make them adherents to it. If anyone has a dispute with this fact; I’d be glad to see you provide us with quotes from Jesus himself that come even close to supporting the positions those on the Right espouse.
QUOTE
the breakdown in the moral fabric of society
Again, this is misleading; EVERY generation thinks that ‘morals’ are on the decline. I suggest reading about what was said about Socrates.In answer to your questions; One only has to read the 1st sentence on their ‘about us’ page: To see that they are on the wrong track.
In the late 1980s, a growing number of academicians and social commentators began to notice a breakdown in the moral fabric of society.
Who says that there is a ‘Moral Breakdown’? History is full of windbags who made similar claims over the last 3 or 4 Millennia.
Kuni - 
is a place for civil constructive debate. Please do not flame or appear to flame others. If you are unwilling or unable to take a civil tone in your debates, please refrain from posting.
TOPICS:
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
(2) Does the Communitarian Network present a model for legislating morality that is acceptable to Liberals/Democrats?
(3) Do you accept or reject the Communitarian Network's model for legislating morality?
is a place for civil constructive debate. Please do not flame or appear to flame others. If you are unwilling or unable to take a civil tone in your debates, please refrain from posting.TOPICS:
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
(2) Does the Communitarian Network present a model for legislating morality that is acceptable to Liberals/Democrats?
(3) Do you accept or reject the Communitarian Network's model for legislating morality?
(3) Do you accept or reject the Communitarian Network's model for legislating morality?
First off, I don't see much difference between the three questions, so I'll answer this most general of the three. In general, I like their approach. Their criteria for evaluating any proposed law seem worthwhile, although the third one (based on comprehensive religious beliefs) seems a bit strained. However, I got the feeling that they danced around one factor and completely missed a second.
The first is the degree of democratic support required to put an element of a moral code into law. A simple majority seems to me to be unacceptable; I do not accept the moral right of a majority of Americans to require me to salute the flag, pay taxes to support the local church, or not curse when I hit my finger with a hammer. The Communitarian Network's model does partially address these issues, but it leaves open the possibility that the majority can impose any moral stricture on everybody else so long as that moral stricture meets their three constraints. I believe that we should require a supermajority of some sort for some types of morality legislation. I don't mind a simple majority for zoning rules or county budgets, but when we intrude in any direct way into the life of the individual, I think we need a supermajority.
The second factor, which they do not raise at all, is that, ultimately, morality is nothing more than a set of rules of behavior for maximizing everybody's happiness. Morality is pragmatic. For example, the Mongols under Ghengis Khan had a law making it illegal to wash clothes in a stream during a storm. This may sound silly, but in fact it turns out to have a reasonable basis. Members of that culture were abnormally terrified of thunder; people washing clothes at the water's edge were wont to leap into the water in terror when thunder cracked, and drown. It was rather like our drunk driving laws; it served to reduce the likelihood of death and injury.
Therefore, any proposed law should be subject to a fourth constraint: it has to have an obvious benefit to some people. Somebody has to be better off because of it, and nobody should be worse off (or perhaps the benefits should strongly outweigh the penalties).
Let's apply the constraints to a number of highly controversial issues to see how they come out in the Communitarian Network's system, as well as how mine alters any.
Abortion: no effect here. The issue hinges on the definition of personhood, not any moral system. Hence we have here no basis for resolving this issue.
Gay marriage: I'm not certain if the CN triad would rule against laws prohibiting gay marriage; I didn't see anything about that on the cited page. But my additional constraint would rule against laws prohibiting gay marriage on the grounds that gays win and we cannot identify any losers. Now, if you think that there oughtta be a law against gay marriage, then this data point stands against my constraint. But if you feel otherwise, then it stands for my constraint.
Laws forbidding divorce: Again, I'm not sure if their triad would rule out such laws. My constraint would rule out such laws except where children are involved.
Laws against euthanasia: I think that their triad would rule against such laws as intrusions into the private decisions of individuals.
I can't immediately think of other examples of laws that would clearly differentiate my additional constraint from the original triad.
As to the triad itself, I think it makes one thing clear: many of the laws proposed by the religious right would not get past this triad. That in itself is interesting.
First off, I don't see much difference between the three questions, so I'll answer this most general of the three. In general, I like their approach. Their criteria for evaluating any proposed law seem worthwhile, although the third one (based on comprehensive religious beliefs) seems a bit strained. However, I got the feeling that they danced around one factor and completely missed a second.
The first is the degree of democratic support required to put an element of a moral code into law. A simple majority seems to me to be unacceptable; I do not accept the moral right of a majority of Americans to require me to salute the flag, pay taxes to support the local church, or not curse when I hit my finger with a hammer. The Communitarian Network's model does partially address these issues, but it leaves open the possibility that the majority can impose any moral stricture on everybody else so long as that moral stricture meets their three constraints. I believe that we should require a supermajority of some sort for some types of morality legislation. I don't mind a simple majority for zoning rules or county budgets, but when we intrude in any direct way into the life of the individual, I think we need a supermajority.
The second factor, which they do not raise at all, is that, ultimately, morality is nothing more than a set of rules of behavior for maximizing everybody's happiness. Morality is pragmatic. For example, the Mongols under Ghengis Khan had a law making it illegal to wash clothes in a stream during a storm. This may sound silly, but in fact it turns out to have a reasonable basis. Members of that culture were abnormally terrified of thunder; people washing clothes at the water's edge were wont to leap into the water in terror when thunder cracked, and drown. It was rather like our drunk driving laws; it served to reduce the likelihood of death and injury.
Therefore, any proposed law should be subject to a fourth constraint: it has to have an obvious benefit to some people. Somebody has to be better off because of it, and nobody should be worse off (or perhaps the benefits should strongly outweigh the penalties).
Let's apply the constraints to a number of highly controversial issues to see how they come out in the Communitarian Network's system, as well as how mine alters any.
Abortion: no effect here. The issue hinges on the definition of personhood, not any moral system. Hence we have here no basis for resolving this issue.
Gay marriage: I'm not certain if the CN triad would rule against laws prohibiting gay marriage; I didn't see anything about that on the cited page. But my additional constraint would rule against laws prohibiting gay marriage on the grounds that gays win and we cannot identify any losers. Now, if you think that there oughtta be a law against gay marriage, then this data point stands against my constraint. But if you feel otherwise, then it stands for my constraint.
Laws forbidding divorce: Again, I'm not sure if their triad would rule out such laws. My constraint would rule out such laws except where children are involved.
Laws against euthanasia: I think that their triad would rule against such laws as intrusions into the private decisions of individuals.
I can't immediately think of other examples of laws that would clearly differentiate my additional constraint from the original triad.
As to the triad itself, I think it makes one thing clear: many of the laws proposed by the religious right would not get past this triad. That in itself is interesting.
That site was truly an interesting read..thx haleyanne 
Yes absolutely. Altho. their views or perceptions on morality and it's needed element in a modern society are not all that alternative to me. I am a self described atheist and don't feel the least bit squeamish around ideas like legislating morality, moral society or social moral conditions.
I would consider myself a liberal..but a Democrat..never. Please.. why do these two have to be lumped as one?
I can't see why presenting such models for moral legislation would be unacceptable. I have a really hard time believing that there are many people in America who truly wish or desire to live in a nation that does not uphold or instill some code (laws) of moral values. Extreme secularism can be just as threating to our progressive nation as can extreme religious views.
I read a really interesting comment on American policy etc. and the author said that Americans view themselves so differently from how the rest of the world sees us because we all share or believe in our Myth...the American Myth. I think this same ideal or impression or belief of an American myth can be applied to the debate of legislating morality.
With a nation that does not share one religious ideology, that does not share a common ancestry..in a nation that is so pluralistic and polyglot such as ours I feel the perpetuation and illusion of a Myth is very important. Our Myth is what they call our moral fabric and it is what makes us all feel like Americans.
I think in reality laws are so interwind with this myth and this illusion ...or in order to really accentuate the importance I feel in the American Myth I should say dream rather than illusion..just sounds a bit cheap...that we naturally lose sight of them. We claim we can not see the apparitions of our dreams and deny their existence..and yet there are always ghosts in the machines
I think what is also often forgotten about our Myth is that Myths change..and they evolve with each person's telling.
I think we often forget how our laws do not define us..we define our laws.
QUOTE
Questions for Debate:
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
Yes absolutely. Altho. their views or perceptions on morality and it's needed element in a modern society are not all that alternative to me. I am a self described atheist and don't feel the least bit squeamish around ideas like legislating morality, moral society or social moral conditions.
QUOTE
2) Does the Communitarian Network present a model for legislating morality that is acceptable to Liberals/Democrats?
I would consider myself a liberal..but a Democrat..never. Please.. why do these two have to be lumped as one?
I can't see why presenting such models for moral legislation would be unacceptable. I have a really hard time believing that there are many people in America who truly wish or desire to live in a nation that does not uphold or instill some code (laws) of moral values. Extreme secularism can be just as threating to our progressive nation as can extreme religious views.
I read a really interesting comment on American policy etc. and the author said that Americans view themselves so differently from how the rest of the world sees us because we all share or believe in our Myth...the American Myth. I think this same ideal or impression or belief of an American myth can be applied to the debate of legislating morality.
With a nation that does not share one religious ideology, that does not share a common ancestry..in a nation that is so pluralistic and polyglot such as ours I feel the perpetuation and illusion of a Myth is very important. Our Myth is what they call our moral fabric and it is what makes us all feel like Americans.
I think in reality laws are so interwind with this myth and this illusion ...or in order to really accentuate the importance I feel in the American Myth I should say dream rather than illusion..just sounds a bit cheap...that we naturally lose sight of them. We claim we can not see the apparitions of our dreams and deny their existence..and yet there are always ghosts in the machines
I think what is also often forgotten about our Myth is that Myths change..and they evolve with each person's telling.
I think we often forget how our laws do not define us..we define our laws.
“And the phrase “Christian Conservatives” is incorrect, you cannot hold the views the Religious Right does and still follow what Christ actually taught; Jesus was a Liberal. Just because some have hijacked a Religion does not make them adherents to it. If anyone has a dispute with this fact; I’d be glad to see you provide us with quotes from Jesus himself that come even close to supporting the positions those on the Right espouse.”
In response to this statement……..
What views does the religious right hold that are wrong? How have they hijacked the religion? I do not think they have hijacked it. I think the “left” never knew the message to begin with, so it’s always been confusion to them.
I’ll be happy to give you many examples of what Jesus said straight from the Bible. I did not think we could debate or get into a religious discussion in this forum, so if you’d like to discuss this further let me know. I’ll site one scripture.
Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the life…..no one comes to the Father but through me.” Notice…………He said, “the way” not “A way” The “right” believes this statement to be true. Does the “left”? No
This statement is clear. No one comes to the Father………….no one, unless they accept Christ…………therefore there is only one path not many. Do you call this a liberal statement? How many liberals believe this to be true? Not many………..so do they follow Christ’s teaching?
If any group has tried to hijack the religion it’s that of the “left”.
Jesus a liberal? He was God, He was upfront about sin and how one gets to heaven. The "right" has no problem seeing this as fact............the "left" struggles.
In response to this statement……..
What views does the religious right hold that are wrong? How have they hijacked the religion? I do not think they have hijacked it. I think the “left” never knew the message to begin with, so it’s always been confusion to them.
I’ll be happy to give you many examples of what Jesus said straight from the Bible. I did not think we could debate or get into a religious discussion in this forum, so if you’d like to discuss this further let me know. I’ll site one scripture.
Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the life…..no one comes to the Father but through me.” Notice…………He said, “the way” not “A way” The “right” believes this statement to be true. Does the “left”? No
This statement is clear. No one comes to the Father………….no one, unless they accept Christ…………therefore there is only one path not many. Do you call this a liberal statement? How many liberals believe this to be true? Not many………..so do they follow Christ’s teaching?
If any group has tried to hijack the religion it’s that of the “left”.
Jesus a liberal? He was God, He was upfront about sin and how one gets to heaven. The "right" has no problem seeing this as fact............the "left" struggles.
QUOTE(azchurchmouse @ Aug 4 2005, 09:35 PM)
I think the “left” never knew the message to begin with, so it’s always been confusion to them.
..Jesus a liberal? He was God, He was upfront about sin and how one gets to heaven. The "right" has no problem seeing this as fact............the "left" struggles.
..Jesus a liberal? He was God, He was upfront about sin and how one gets to heaven. The "right" has no problem seeing this as fact............the "left" struggles.
Let's not pursue this type of name-calling. Kuni took his cheap shot, and you took a cheap shot back at him, so now you're even, and we can talk about this in a more reasoned fashion. First off, it is rather silly to attribute 21st-century political opinions to a first-century person. Jesus never said anything about the Internet, or about terrorism, or jet places, or skyscrapers. So we really shouldn't be trying to stretch his words too far here. He spoke on broad terms about spiritual values, not political values. He was explicit that he didn't want to be considered in political terms, and I think that those of either side who take his name this way take it in vain, rather like the Christian soldiers who charged into battle shouting "God with us!" as their battlecry.
The main point that Jesus emphasized was "Love your neighbor". If you want to bring Christianity into political discussion, bring that message in. Nobody can argue with it, nobody can re-interpret it, and nobody can find a right to privacy in it (just kidding...
). And leave it at that.Oops, I have to say something on-topic, too... Um, er:
This topic is not about Christianity, it is about a methodology for integrating moral values into laws. Those values could be Christian or Hindu and Hopi; the important point is the means by which we integrate those values, not the values themselves. In a sense, they are "meta-values" that consider values at a more abstract level, in the same way that the Constitution is a "meta-law" that specifies how laws are to be made. So, I'll ask you, azchurchmouse, now that we've put aside this digression on who is holier than whom, what do you think of the Communitarian Network's ideas? Do they seem workable to you?
C'mon folks stay on topic. It's not that hard. 
DEBATE:
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
(2) Does the Communitarian Network present a model for legislating morality that is acceptable to Liberals/Democrats?
(3) Do you accept or reject the Communitarian Network's model for legislating morality?
I strongly suggest you read the selections hayleyanne has presented in order to understand what you are to be debating here.
DEBATE:
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
(2) Does the Communitarian Network present a model for legislating morality that is acceptable to Liberals/Democrats?
(3) Do you accept or reject the Communitarian Network's model for legislating morality?
I strongly suggest you read the selections hayleyanne has presented in order to understand what you are to be debating here.
This is an interesting read. I've only glanced over the essays written so far; I plan to give a more thorough reading as I have time. A few initial comments:
1. I don't buy the communitarian position of a "breakdown in the moral fabric of society" since the 1980s. I will agree that there has been an ever increasing homogeneity of pop culture reaching epidemic proportions... but, moral breakdown? I'm not so convinced.
2. I assume that the term "communitarian" was chosen to reflect a principle of raising community to a quasi-religious status. That may be useful for many folks who consider religion to be inherently good. However, for me, it's a big turn off since I consider religion to be guilty until proven innocent.
Answering the part of the 2nd question first:
(2) Does the Communitarian Network present a model for legislating morality that is acceptable to Liberals/Democrats?
Now, I don't consider myself a liberal, but this sentiment is wholly inaccurate. In fact, I'm beginning to recognize a pattern, hayleyanne. It seems you consider liberals to be nihilistic post-modernists. I'd love to have a debate with you on just this, however we'd have to create a special forum where it wouldn't degrade to a liberal-/conservative-bashing thread. I suppose we could PM each other... Anyway, back to my point:
Liberals do want to legislate morality; it's just morality different from "conservative" morality. Let me give just a couple of easy examples: environmental/preservationist agenda & workers rights. Both of these ideas are part of the liberal lexicon and clearly have a large moral component to them.
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
(3) Do you accept or reject the Communitarian Network's model for legislating morality?
Questions 1 & 3 are really the same question so I'll answer them together.
First, I agree with the communitarian principle that there should be laws addressing ethical behavior within society. Now, I'm not a lawyer (like you, hayleyanne), but I can't imagine laws in the criminal domain not containing a moral component to them. In that sense, the communitarian agenda is not new, right? Humans have been legislating morality since the inception of civilization.
What I think is different (or at least explicit) is the attempt to enumerate the criteria a prospective law must meet before being passed. I agree with this notion; there should be a "meta-morality" to legislating morality. However, I think the communitarian principles can be quite problematic too as the criteria you've outlined can be a matter of interpretive degree.
For example, the "intrusion and coercion" criterion can be easily modified by the social elan of the time. There's a debate now in this country about the safety vs. freedom. How far may police authority go before our rights are abridged? Well, apparently, this answer depends on how frightened people are, that is, how recent the latest bombing has been. Thus, something considered too intrusive 5 years ago is deemed acceptable today.
Actually, each of these criteria can be interpreted through the lens of current social "norms" in a way that may completely change their intention. I suppose I could come up with some alternative (or, perhaps, additional) criteria. But, I'll leave off for now.
1. I don't buy the communitarian position of a "breakdown in the moral fabric of society" since the 1980s. I will agree that there has been an ever increasing homogeneity of pop culture reaching epidemic proportions... but, moral breakdown? I'm not so convinced.
2. I assume that the term "communitarian" was chosen to reflect a principle of raising community to a quasi-religious status. That may be useful for many folks who consider religion to be inherently good. However, for me, it's a big turn off since I consider religion to be guilty until proven innocent.
Answering the part of the 2nd question first:
(2) Does the Communitarian Network present a model for legislating morality that is acceptable to Liberals/Democrats?
QUOTE(hayleyanne)
On the other hand, Liberals have not in any significant way, countered the message from the Christian Right with a model of how to “legislate morality”.
Now, I don't consider myself a liberal, but this sentiment is wholly inaccurate. In fact, I'm beginning to recognize a pattern, hayleyanne. It seems you consider liberals to be nihilistic post-modernists. I'd love to have a debate with you on just this, however we'd have to create a special forum where it wouldn't degrade to a liberal-/conservative-bashing thread. I suppose we could PM each other... Anyway, back to my point:
Liberals do want to legislate morality; it's just morality different from "conservative" morality. Let me give just a couple of easy examples: environmental/preservationist agenda & workers rights. Both of these ideas are part of the liberal lexicon and clearly have a large moral component to them.
(1) Does the Communitarian Network present a workable alternative model for legislating morality?
(3) Do you accept or reject the Communitarian Network's model for legislating morality?
Questions 1 & 3 are really the same question so I'll answer them together.
First, I agree with the communitarian principle that there should be laws addressing ethical behavior within society. Now, I'm not a lawyer (like you, hayleyanne), but I can't imagine laws in the criminal domain not containing a moral component to them. In that sense, the communitarian agenda is not new, right? Humans have been legislating morality since the inception of civilization.
What I think is different (or at least explicit) is the attempt to enumerate the criteria a prospective law must meet before being passed. I agree with this notion; there should be a "meta-morality" to legislating morality. However, I think the communitarian principles can be quite problematic too as the criteria you've outlined can be a matter of interpretive degree.
For example, the "intrusion and coercion" criterion can be easily modified by the social elan of the time. There's a debate now in this country about the safety vs. freedom. How far may police authority go before our rights are abridged? Well, apparently, this answer depends on how frightened people are, that is, how recent the latest bombing has been. Thus, something considered too intrusive 5 years ago is deemed acceptable today.
Actually, each of these criteria can be interpreted through the lens of current social "norms" in a way that may completely change their intention. I suppose I could come up with some alternative (or, perhaps, additional) criteria. But, I'll leave off for now.
Hoo boy, it's been a long time since I've had to deal with the Communitarians. I thought I had wrapped up that interminable chapter of my life a year and a half ago. Before I get into the subject of my post, let me just say that Amitai Etzioni is probably the driest and most longwinded political theorist alive today.
Moving right along... Communitarianism is a sort of 'hocus pocus' school of political thought. It adopts a set of claims which it says are different liberalism, then spends a great deal of time and effort in a failing effort to prove that this is true. What underlies the 'theory' of communitarianism however is six basic claims; three descriptive claims: the Embeddedness Thesis, the Social Thesis, and the Cultural Option Thesis, as well as two descriptive claims: the "Civic Virtue", "Public Participation", and the "Member of the Community" Thesis.
What's interesting about ALL of these claims is that they are only "different" than contemporary liberal thought when their meanings are engineered in such a way that these intellectual flashpoints become nothing more than idle truisms. Take for example the "Public Participation" thesis. This basic claim of the Communitarians is, well, less than impressive. Basically, they're saying that, “That participation in the public sphere is valuable.” This is neither profound, nor insightful. Most importantly, it does NOTHING to differ itself from mainstream liberal though. Everyone from Mill all the way through to Green and Rawls identifies participation in the public sphere as essential.
Now, I suppose you could ask, why am I hammering away at Amitai Etzioni and these claims when they have nothing to do with legislating morality. Well, there are two reasons. First of all, Etzioni is the head (and founder) of the Communitarian Movement, and he is of course a fraud. His writings are childishly simplistic, his prescriptions are maddeningly vague and ambiguous, and his ideas are idiotic.
Lets look specifically at Hayleyanne's stuff now.
There are two things wrong with this comment from "the Network." First and foremost, it (as with most intellectual work from Communitarians) depends on a false assumption. Communitarians (and many conservatives) simply assume that an unrecognizable moral/ethical character is the same thing as a lack of a moral/ethical character. This problem stems from the fact that Communitarians understand the relationship between liberty, individuals, and society entirely differently than liberals, and most sane conservatives. To liberals, and most modern conservatives, we can understand this relationship like this: individuals enter into a society in order to guarantee and foster their own liberty. For communitarians however, this definition only works when you place the emphasis on "society." It is society, organized in a pattern of concentric "community" circles, that provides individuals with liberty. A fine hair to split, but Etzioni is the one playing Moses here, not me.
The point is that society is not nihilistic, it merely has a moral/ethical character that is unfamiliar. Society always has been, and always will be "a group of individuals who come together to guarantee their liberty." The problem that the Communitarians have is that the morality of this society is one that they do not like or understand.
You're making a classic mistake here as well. Morality isn't some outside force which enters into a society to provide order. Morality is simply the agreed-upon rules for interaction which a society "agrees" on when it forms. Law is simply the codification of these rules. As new people enter into a society, debate interaction, and leave (usually through death) that society, the agreed upon morals change. Morality does not provide order, nor can it. It is merely an amalgamation of the shared values of the free individuals in a society. As such, a disorganized society will have disorganized morals, and organized society will have organized morals, etc. We often make the assumption that puritanical societies came to exist because they developed a strict moral code. That understanding is completely backwards. Puritanical societies were simply individuals who had shared values which resulted in the Puritan moral code. This is not to say that external forces don't influence morality; but we have to remember that morality comes from society, not the other way around.
When you understand where morality comes from, this argument becomes moot. In a free society morality is by its nature arrived at democratically. In fact, morality is superdemocratic: it is informed not just by those who are franchised, but by each and every member of that society.
The fact is that we have a model for legislating morality; the law. If the morals of the community (which is the basic social unit in Communitarian thought) change, they can petition to have the law changed. Efforts to "create" or "reshape" morality however, which is what you are describing, are the anathema of a free society. One doesn't need to be a democrat or republican to appreciate freedom (even if the conceptions differ); and it alarms me the way we so cavalierly toss around words like "morality," "society," and "liberty" in such a way that they are only secondary considerations to what we as individuals find tasteful or offensive. I've got news for each and every one of you: if you have the right to be offended by something someone says or does, then they have the right to be offensive. There is no "if" "and" or "but" about it. Social morals will find a compromise between the two viewpoints, and the law will provide respectable boundaries. What everyone else needs to do is relax, take a chill-pill, and remember: society exists to maximize the individual liberty of each and every member of that society. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Moving right along... Communitarianism is a sort of 'hocus pocus' school of political thought. It adopts a set of claims which it says are different liberalism, then spends a great deal of time and effort in a failing effort to prove that this is true. What underlies the 'theory' of communitarianism however is six basic claims; three descriptive claims: the Embeddedness Thesis, the Social Thesis, and the Cultural Option Thesis, as well as two descriptive claims: the "Civic Virtue", "Public Participation", and the "Member of the Community" Thesis.
What's interesting about ALL of these claims is that they are only "different" than contemporary liberal thought when their meanings are engineered in such a way that these intellectual flashpoints become nothing more than idle truisms. Take for example the "Public Participation" thesis. This basic claim of the Communitarians is, well, less than impressive. Basically, they're saying that, “That participation in the public sphere is valuable.” This is neither profound, nor insightful. Most importantly, it does NOTHING to differ itself from mainstream liberal though. Everyone from Mill all the way through to Green and Rawls identifies participation in the public sphere as essential.
Now, I suppose you could ask, why am I hammering away at Amitai Etzioni and these claims when they have nothing to do with legislating morality. Well, there are two reasons. First of all, Etzioni is the head (and founder) of the Communitarian Movement, and he is of course a fraud. His writings are childishly simplistic, his prescriptions are maddeningly vague and ambiguous, and his ideas are idiotic.
Lets look specifically at Hayleyanne's stuff now.
QUOTE
No social order is or could be ethically vacuous, and a liberal and democratic society should not let its commitment to liberty and tolerance lead it into a general nihilism that undermines its constitutive purposes.
There are two things wrong with this comment from "the Network." First and foremost, it (as with most intellectual work from Communitarians) depends on a false assumption. Communitarians (and many conservatives) simply assume that an unrecognizable moral/ethical character is the same thing as a lack of a moral/ethical character. This problem stems from the fact that Communitarians understand the relationship between liberty, individuals, and society entirely differently than liberals, and most sane conservatives. To liberals, and most modern conservatives, we can understand this relationship like this: individuals enter into a society in order to guarantee and foster their own liberty. For communitarians however, this definition only works when you place the emphasis on "society." It is society, organized in a pattern of concentric "community" circles, that provides individuals with liberty. A fine hair to split, but Etzioni is the one playing Moses here, not me.
The point is that society is not nihilistic, it merely has a moral/ethical character that is unfamiliar. Society always has been, and always will be "a group of individuals who come together to guarantee their liberty." The problem that the Communitarians have is that the morality of this society is one that they do not like or understand.
QUOTE
The paradigm prevalent today for “legislating morality” comes mainly from the Christian right. Conservative Christians are the first to see an inherent connection between law and morality and seek to realize that connection through relevant legislation. The problem is that they infuse their legislative initiatives with a morality that is articulated and understood in exclusively Christian terms
On the other hand, Liberals have not in any significant way, countered the message from the Christian Right with a model of how to “legislate morality”.
On the other hand, Liberals have not in any significant way, countered the message from the Christian Right with a model of how to “legislate morality”.
You're making a classic mistake here as well. Morality isn't some outside force which enters into a society to provide order. Morality is simply the agreed-upon rules for interaction which a society "agrees" on when it forms. Law is simply the codification of these rules. As new people enter into a society, debate interaction, and leave (usually through death) that society, the agreed upon morals change. Morality does not provide order, nor can it. It is merely an amalgamation of the shared values of the free individuals in a society. As such, a disorganized society will have disorganized morals, and organized society will have organized morals, etc. We often make the assumption that puritanical societies came to exist because they developed a strict moral code. That understanding is completely backwards. Puritanical societies were simply individuals who had shared values which resulted in the Puritan moral code. This is not to say that external forces don't influence morality; but we have to remember that morality comes from society, not the other way around.
QUOTE
In other words—Civic Morality must be encouraged. Most importantly, the group emphasizes that we must reach agreement democratically as to what those moral principles (civic morality) are. Note that it does not require “consensus”—only democratic agreement.
When you understand where morality comes from, this argument becomes moot. In a free society morality is by its nature arrived at democratically. In fact, morality is superdemocratic: it is informed not just by those who are franchised, but by each and every member of that society.
The fact is that we have a model for legislating morality; the law. If the morals of the community (which is the basic social unit in Communitarian thought) change, they can petition to have the law changed. Efforts to "create" or "reshape" morality however, which is what you are describing, are the anathema of a free society. One doesn't need to be a democrat or republican to appreciate freedom (even if the conceptions differ); and it alarms me the way we so cavalierly toss around words like "morality," "society," and "liberty" in such a way that they are only secondary considerations to what we as individuals find tasteful or offensive. I've got news for each and every one of you: if you have the right to be offended by something someone says or does, then they have the right to be offensive. There is no "if" "and" or "but" about it. Social morals will find a compromise between the two viewpoints, and the law will provide respectable boundaries. What everyone else needs to do is relax, take a chill-pill, and remember: society exists to maximize the individual liberty of each and every member of that society. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Ultimatejoe I have a few questions regarding your post..
I have found little evidence that the communitarians as a whole are regarded as a joke or even as you have claimed as illegitimate political thought . Could you perhaps provide a source for this wide held fully accepted belief? I hadn't been much familiar with them before hayleanne's posting and from what I have found and briefly read up on them they are not regarded as poorly as you have described.
Also I am in such disagreement with the basis or your argument..that "Society always has been, and always will be a group of individuals who come together to guarantee their liberty." I don't feel that always has been and always will be the ultimate truth. There are just gobs of examples of when groups and individuals have entered or created a society that does not uphold or guarantee their liberty...their I assume means community ? Or are you focusing on the individual? Even so I think where we have found ourselves today, with this society that focuses and aims to preserve liberty, we had to work very hard and fight many battles to be here.
Only as long as we remain focused on and are in constant action of preserving the collective liberty we all share will we remain this way.
I don't think a liberal progressive society is what comes naturally...that is why our laws and the process in which we enforce, review and write these laws is so important. If what we enjoy today is just the natural outcome of humans coming together to form a group then why aren't all the nations or societies of the world enjoying this liberty? Why isn't it a universal truth?
Liberty can only be truly achieved in a society through communal efforts and quite often the government has to be either the instigator, the protector or the guaranteer as often people individually doing so is not enough.
That is why we have to write all these things we feel liberty is and all the accompaniments liberty brings down...to remind ourselves of our myth, our promise, as a collective for the collective. We can't rely on people as individuals to always desire these aims so we need something more than human to guarantee this..our laws.
It is not that I feel individual rights are unimportant it is just that I feel individuals are unique and often display unique outcomes. Rather than try to repress this uniqueness or lower it's diversity I would prefer we relied on this constant guarantee of liberty through more controllable measures...like a representative democracy.
I also haven't found your belief that communitarianism differs little from liberalism to be much true either. It seems you could have conservative communitarianism beliefs as much as you could liberal communitarianism beliefs. In fact I read this description on communitarianism and found their Asian Values example fully exemplifies that communitarianism can be interpreted very much not like liberalism.
Also Civic Virtue is as much a conservative view as it is a liberal one. I don't really think this is where they wish to draw the line or differ I think it is more a means of how we participate in public..as individuals or communities or families or church groups or what? What is the most important means of public participation? The individual's expression of self? The community's provision of economic health and security? The family's drive for self determination and sustainment? The church's offering of religious salvation? Civic Virtue is not what we all differ on it is what we feel is most representative or important to Civic Virtue.
I have found little evidence that the communitarians as a whole are regarded as a joke or even as you have claimed as illegitimate political thought . Could you perhaps provide a source for this wide held fully accepted belief? I hadn't been much familiar with them before hayleanne's posting and from what I have found and briefly read up on them they are not regarded as poorly as you have described.
Also I am in such disagreement with the basis or your argument..that "Society always has been, and always will be a group of individuals who come together to guarantee their liberty." I don't feel that always has been and always will be the ultimate truth. There are just gobs of examples of when groups and individuals have entered or created a society that does not uphold or guarantee their liberty...their I assume means community ? Or are you focusing on the individual? Even so I think where we have found ourselves today, with this society that focuses and aims to preserve liberty, we had to work very hard and fight many battles to be here.
Only as long as we remain focused on and are in constant action of preserving the collective liberty we all share will we remain this way.
I don't think a liberal progressive society is what comes naturally...that is why our laws and the process in which we enforce, review and write these laws is so important. If what we enjoy today is just the natural outcome of humans coming together to form a group then why aren't all the nations or societies of the world enjoying this liberty? Why isn't it a universal truth?
Liberty can only be truly achieved in a society through communal efforts and quite often the government has to be either the instigator, the protector or the guaranteer as often people individually doing so is not enough.
That is why we have to write all these things we feel liberty is and all the accompaniments liberty brings down...to remind ourselves of our myth, our promise, as a collective for the collective. We can't rely on people as individuals to always desire these aims so we need something more than human to guarantee this..our laws.
It is not that I feel individual rights are unimportant it is just that I feel individuals are unique and often display unique outcomes. Rather than try to repress this uniqueness or lower it's diversity I would prefer we relied on this constant guarantee of liberty through more controllable measures...like a representative democracy.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe)
What's interesting about ALL of these claims is that they are only "different" than contemporary liberal thought when their meanings are engineered in such a way that these intellectual flashpoints become nothing more than idle truisms. Take for example the "Public Participation" thesis. This basic claim of the Communitarians is, well, less than impressive. Basically, they're saying that, “That participation in the public sphere is valuable.” This is neither profound, nor insightful. Most importantly, it does NOTHING to differ itself from mainstream liberal though. Everyone from Mill all the way through to Green and Rawls identifies participation in the public sphere as essential.
I also haven't found your belief that communitarianism differs little from liberalism to be much true either. It seems you could have conservative communitarianism beliefs as much as you could liberal communitarianism beliefs. In fact I read this description on communitarianism and found their Asian Values example fully exemplifies that communitarianism can be interpreted very much not like liberalism.
Also Civic Virtue is as much a conservative view as it is a liberal one. I don't really think this is where they wish to draw the line or differ I think it is more a means of how we participate in public..as individuals or communities or families or church groups or what? What is the most important means of public participation? The individual's expression of self? The community's provision of economic health and security? The family's drive for self determination and sustainment? The church's offering of religious salvation? Civic Virtue is not what we all differ on it is what we feel is most representative or important to Civic Virtue.
I don't recall "speaking" for the broader intellectual community in any post. I only shared with you my own impressions of Communitarianism based on my own readings; particularly "The Spirit of Community" by Amitai Etzioni; the director of the site linked to in the opening and 'father' of the Communitarian movement.
But yes, from my limited readings of Political Theory, the Communitarians aren't especially well respected. Both Sandel and Kymlicka are highly critical of Communitarianism.
I think you are misunderstanding me here. I am not speaking of "liberty" in the American franchise-and-rights sense. Nor am I suggesting that all societies are free.I am thinking about the Hobbesian understanding of society here. Life without society is "nasty, brutish and short." That's the basic premise of all "liberal" theory. Please note I am not using the perverted, dirty-word variet of "liberal" which refers only to a specific set of policy agendas and ideology in contemporary politics, but the political theory meaning of the word. If you confuse the two then nothing I say will make a lick of sense.
Obviously North Korea is not a free society. It would be foolish to claim otherwise (or insinuate that I had done so.) Lets not forget that the constant threat of the Leviathan is that it becomes too large, and consumes the rights of men in excess. We all sacrifice certain rights to enter into society; which today manifests itself in a government. Every single political theorist since Aristotle has recognized that rulers CAN and DO exceed their "mandate" by taking the rights of individuals indiscriminately. Again, this does not change the fact that people organize societies. I sincerely doubt that the ancient Sumerians organized in the valiant struggle to achieve democracy; yet they became a civilization nonetheless.
All well and good, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it has to do with the topic or my last post. The fact is that you are disagreeing with communitarianism (as I do), and agreeing with classical liberalism (as I do), just not hte unconstrained Lockean variety.
Once again you are confusing classical liberalism with contemporary political discourse. What I was suggesting, what political theorists other than me (Rawls, Kymlicka, etc.) have observed, is that the Communitarians do not differ much in their underlying philosophy from classical liberals; at least not as much as they claim.
If you want a more intelligent response to your concern, I suggest looking up the following authors: Joseph Raz, Robert Shiner, Bruce Nevin, Chantal Mouffe, David Chaney, and the others I mentioned earlier in my post.
But yes, from my limited readings of Political Theory, the Communitarians aren't especially well respected. Both Sandel and Kymlicka are highly critical of Communitarianism.
QUOTE
Also I am in such disagreement with the basis or your argument..that "Society always has been, and always will be a group of individuals who come together to guarantee their liberty." I don't feel that always has been and always will be the ultimate truth. There are just gobs of examples of when groups and individuals have entered or created a society that does not uphold or guarantee their liberty...their I assume means community ? Or are you focusing on the individual? Even so I think where we have found ourselves today, with this society that focuses and aims to preserve liberty, we had to work very hard and fight many battles to be here.
I think you are misunderstanding me here. I am not speaking of "liberty" in the American franchise-and-rights sense. Nor am I suggesting that all societies are free.I am thinking about the Hobbesian understanding of society here. Life without society is "nasty, brutish and short." That's the basic premise of all "liberal" theory. Please note I am not using the perverted, dirty-word variet of "liberal" which refers only to a specific set of policy agendas and ideology in contemporary politics, but the political theory meaning of the word. If you confuse the two then nothing I say will make a lick of sense.
Obviously North Korea is not a free society. It would be foolish to claim otherwise (or insinuate that I had done so.) Lets not forget that the constant threat of the Leviathan is that it becomes too large, and consumes the rights of men in excess. We all sacrifice certain rights to enter into society; which today manifests itself in a government. Every single political theorist since Aristotle has recognized that rulers CAN and DO exceed their "mandate" by taking the rights of individuals indiscriminately. Again, this does not change the fact that people organize societies. I sincerely doubt that the ancient Sumerians organized in the valiant struggle to achieve democracy; yet they became a civilization nonetheless.
QUOTE
Liberty can only be truly achieved in a society through communal efforts and quite often the government has to be either the instigator, the protector or the guaranteer as often people individually doing so is not enough.
That is why we have to write all these things we feel liberty is and all the accompaniments liberty brings down...to remind ourselves of our myth, our promise, as a collective for the collective. We can't rely on people as individuals to always desire these aims so we need something more than human to guarantee this..our laws.
It is not that I feel individual rights are unimportant it is just that I feel individuals are unique and often display unique outcomes. Rather than try to repress this uniqueness or lower it's diversity I would prefer we relied on this constant guarantee of liberty through more controllable measures...like a representative democracy.
That is why we have to write all these things we feel liberty is and all the accompaniments liberty brings down...to remind ourselves of our myth, our promise, as a collective for the collective. We can't rely on people as individuals to always desire these aims so we need something more than human to guarantee this..our laws.
It is not that I feel individual rights are unimportant it is just that I feel individuals are unique and often display unique outcomes. Rather than try to repress this uniqueness or lower it's diversity I would prefer we relied on this constant guarantee of liberty through more controllable measures...like a representative democracy.
All well and good, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it has to do with the topic or my last post. The fact is that you are disagreeing with communitarianism (as I do), and agreeing with classical liberalism (as I do), just not hte unconstrained Lockean variety.
QUOTE
What's interesting about ALL of these claims is that they are only "different" than contemporary liberal thought when their meanings are engineered in such a way that these intellectual flashpoints become nothing more than idle truisms. Take for example the "Public Participation" thesis. This basic claim of the Communitarians is, well, less than impressive. Basically, they're saying that, “That participation in the public sphere is valuable.” This is neither profound, nor insightful. Most importantly, it does NOTHING to differ itself from mainstream liberal though. Everyone from Mill all the way through to Green and Rawls identifies participation in the public sphere as essential.
Once again you are confusing classical liberalism with contemporary political discourse. What I was suggesting, what political theorists other than me (Rawls, Kymlicka, etc.) have observed, is that the Communitarians do not differ much in their underlying philosophy from classical liberals; at least not as much as they claim.
If you want a more intelligent response to your concern, I suggest looking up the following authors: Joseph Raz, Robert Shiner, Bruce Nevin, Chantal Mouffe, David Chaney, and the others I mentioned earlier in my post.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.