[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of
postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous
postings. Of late, the blog has been
looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their
subject. It’s time to post a series of
such summary accounts. The advantage of
such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a
different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and
arguments. This and upcoming summary
postings will be preceded by this message.]
This blogger, before addressing the general challenges civics
teachers face regarding political values and how they play out in the classroom,
wishes to remind the reader what this blog’s goal is in the current set of
postings. That goal is to provide an
explanation of how a natural rights political culture affects federalist aims a
teacher might hold.
So, this posting in a summary way, reviews some of the basic moral
claims that a natural rights political culture promotes. To begin, part and parcel of a dominant
political view is to identify what it holds to be moral when it comes to
political calculations. This is
especially important when the issues at hand are not so easily discerned as to
what people should do on a moral basis.
Those types of concerns pop up all the time and not just politicians or
elected officials need to address them, but the average citizen needs to do so as
well.
And when it comes
to the typical situations that Americans face, two political values tend to be
paramount in such calculations. That is
the values of liberty and equality. It
seems that these two concerns come to the fore most often among the array of issues
that policy makers consider. And usually
a good deal of contention characterizes those deliberations.
For example, policies over welfare or health care illustrate the
point. People who support government
involvement tend to cite equality as their relevant concern; while those who
oppose government action look to liberty to bolster their claims. And one can divide these fights, to some
degree, between those who hold natural rights positions – as in everyone is
responsible for his/her own fate – and those who hold onto more communal
responses that seem to count on federalist values – as in “we’re all in this
together.”
Natural rights’ rationales advocate against communal responses
especially, if by communal, one means government action – along with its
coercive abilities. After all,
government can put people in jail. They
support their contentions with the belief that counts on people being
responsible for their own fates and any reliance on government, among other
negative consequences, undermines people meeting their responsibilities.
Another important example in which natural rights advocates
repeatedly express their concerns is over government regulations of businesses. They generally argue that such government
interference only hurts economic growth and, therefore, hurts everyone. This is claimed despite evidence to the
contrary assuming regulations are within reasonable boundaries.[1]
On an emotional-moral level, what advocates seem to stress is the
near sanctity of the individual. It is
he/she whose sense of worth motivates him/her to accomplish good or even great
things. One is reminded of the novel or
movie, The Fountainhead,[2]
originally written by Ayn Rand. In that
story, the main character, Howard Roark, is brought to trial for dynamiting a
building project that he designed as its architect. This designing was done surreptitiously, and
the project went astray from his design.
At trial, in his only statement of defense, he states he was deprived of
his agreed upon basis for doing the project – that his design not be changed.
In his speech he gives probably the most cogent rationale for the
natural rights view. Here is a taste of
that testimony:
The basic need of the
second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve
others. He preaches altruism.
Altruism is the doctrine which demands
that man live for others and place others above self.
No
man can live for another. He cannot
share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a
weapon of exploitation and versed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have taught every precept that destroys
the creator. Men have been taught
dependence as a virtue.
The
man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites
of those he serves. The relationship
produces nothing but mutual corruption.
It is impossible in concept. The
nearest approach to it in reality – the man who lives to serve others – is the
slave. If physical slavery is repulsive,
how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of
honor. He has the merit of having
resisted and of considering his condition evil.
But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the
basest of creatures. He degrades the
dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is essence of altruism.[3]
But as for this view as an overall bias, the point to draw is that
it holds a particular sense of liberty or, as it is called, natural liberty. Succinctly, that form of liberty holds that
people has the right to determine one’s values and beliefs and to be able to behave
accordingly (short of interfering with others to do likewise). A “true believer” of this construct holds
natural liberty as his/her ultimate or trump value. Or stated another way, for him/her, he/she
could claim: “Give me liberty or give me
death.”
[1]See Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for
Hard Times (New York, NY: Public
Affairs, 2019).
[2]
Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1943) AND King Vidor (director),
The Fountainhead (the film), Warner Brothers, 1949.
[3] “Howard Roark’s Courtroom Speech,” Work the System,
n.d., accessed September 29, 2020, https://www.workthesystem.com/getting-it/howard-roarks-courtroom-speech/
.
No comments:
Post a Comment