CURRENTLY, HOW WONDERFUL?

On March 23, 2018, this blog posted an entry that reviewed how complex public moral questions can be.  In that posting, “A Category of Complex Issues,” it described how a polity must deal with the free rider problem.  That is the problem in which rational calculations lead some to commit immoral and even illegal acts.  It argues that a view of governance and politics solely based on a natural rights view of such concerns falls short of addressing this overall problem.  In short, that construct does not provide enough reason to be good.

          This posting attempts to pick up on this theme and considers what Richard C. Sinopoli[1] sees in the work of John Locke – the father of the natural rights view – in how it deals with moral questioning.  In so doing, Sinopoli gives his readers a more nuance view of Locke’s writings – more nuanced then one gathers from present day depictions of that 1700s’ philosopher.  This will not be an attempt to sanctify Locke, but to be more accurate in reporting what he judged individual rights to be and how those rights related to moral questions.

          Yes, Locke bases his argument on a view of humans as naturally disposed to seek a dominance over others.  But he sees natural humans capable of being taught or socialized in ways that are conducive to the demands of a just society.  Sinopoli, though, judges Locke’s view of this socializing process as relying on a hedonistic psychology or on self-serving drives in their cruder form.

          Before describing this psychology, it is worth remembering why one does so.  One should note the role calculating appropriate social values and dispositions play in the maintenance of a functioning society or polity.  The writings of enlightened thinkers, though, did not agree fully on this role.  A point of disagreement ranges around the role and the meaning of virtue.

          Locke sees virtue as a restraint on natural tendencies whereas his contemporary writers such as Francis Hutcheson and Thomas Reid viewed humans as more apt to pursue socially amenable drives such as compassion or benevolence as natural.[2]  Sinopoli points out that Locke did not see the existence of virtue as did classically influenced writers, especially those who wrote in the tradition of Aristotle. 

Instead of natural tendencies or biases, Locke counted on educational experiences to instill the more cooperating, coordinating, and compromising behaviors upon which a polity depends.  He did not favor enforcing such values – even as important as they are.  The government – other than providing the rational deterrent for antisocial behaviors; i.e., coercive punishment – should not play a role in this socializing process. 

That should be left to social entities such as families and churches.  Of course, other communal entities play a role.  They can be social organizations – businesses or labor groups.  But one should remember, that the role of public education was not an issue in Locke’s time since it did not exist outside of orphanages.

          Admittedly, Sinopoli cannot cite one single work in which these Lockean ideas are spelled out.  They are gleaned from a variety of the philosopher’s writings.  If Locke had dedicated one targeted writing effort to these concerns, perhaps he would have explored all these complex implications surrounding his proposals. 

For example, how could a citizenry get together, as individual agents pursuing individual goals, and come up rationally with the necessary supports or rewards to develop such a socializing strategy?  How could they create those entities that would do the necessary work to bend the natural biases of selfish beings – those unsocialized youngsters?  He foreshadowed the work of behavioralists by supporting a system of compassionate rewards and punishments to do the job, but he does not give his readers a how-to account for accomplishing this.

This blog will pick up on this development at some future point, but for now a reaction seem to be appropriate.  First, how realistic is it to depend on self-centered agents mustering the necessary collective understanding and willingness to meet the challenge younger selfish beings impose on society?  Is that not being too optimistic? 

For example, just think of the problems current concerned people have in convincing their fellow citizens of the dangers posed by climate change.  Even that relatively immediate emergency is not enough for many to accept policies that hint at any short-term sacrifices to offset a long-term existential disaster.  In meeting this emergency or in properly socializing a younger generation, humans must have more going for them then a natural selfish bias. 

The fact that humans have been able to establish generally congenial social environments indicates that Hutcheson and Reid were closer to describing human nature.  Also, what one sees developing from an adoption of natural rights thinking is not this communal, cooperative effort to encourage socially minded individuals, but an advancement of a non-communal view. 

This nation’s public and private institutions have shied away from communal social messaging, with certain exceptions here and there.  Consider that in public schools today, one finds a paucity of effort to socialize the young along these concerns – one can argue that an effort to do so has become illegitimate.  The natural rights construct today argues it is up to everyone, individually, to determine his/her views concerning any social responsibilities one might have beyond obeying the law.  A more “everyone has the right to do his/her own thing” prevails.

If the reader doubts this, just consider if the film, “It’s a Wonderful Life,” were released today as a featured film – even with a more secular bent – how it would be received.  Probably it would be viewed as an out-of-date sentimental piece of Hollywood fare.  Yes, in a recent Christmas Eve showing it was able to muster about four and half million viewers,[3] but then again, it’s become more of a Christmas tradition for some than a serious bit of art with a practical, serious message.

This blog has argued that Locke’s views have become more individualistic as the years have gone by.  This is seen as a natural development when a people are given a legitimizing rationale for acting self-centered-ly.  As such, the nation’s public schools – be it coercively or compassionately – have more and more drifted away from fulfilling any role in socializing youth as Locke envisioned.  Consequently, many of the current generation has been described as narcissistic and selfish.[4]

---

[1] Richard C. Sinopoli, The Foundations of American Citizenship:  Liberalism, the Constitution, and Civic Virtue (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press, 1992).

[2] Gary Wills describes how these writers’ ideas affected Thomas Jefferson and others of the founding era.  See Gary Wills, Inventing America:  Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (New York, NY:  Vintage Books, 1978/2018).

[3] Rick Porter, “TV Ratings Sunday:  NFL and ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ Lead Christmas Eve,” TV by the Numbers, December 25, 2015, accessed December 2, 2019, https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/tv-ratings-sunday-dec-24-2017/ .

[4] Jean M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement (New York, NY:  Free Press, 2009).