There is a practical problem for a civics teacher who would utilize
federation theory in guiding his or her course content choices. That is, federation theory would be used to
identify which political and/or governmental problems are suitable for student
inquiry. Those problems would reflect a condition
in our social-political/governmental environment that is in conflict with at
least one federalist value.[1] But once the problem is presented or identified
by students, the fact that we live in a nation in which the natural rights
construct prevails, means that students need to deal with that reality. They, therefore, need to have a working
understanding of how most Americans are likely to see the problem; how they, if
at all, will define the condition or problem that students are analyzing. With this in mind, let me suggest the
following approach.
For an adherent of the natural rights construct, there is the
belief that any individual has the right to do as he/she wishes as long as the
person does not hurt someone else. Of
course, in real life, just about any social behavior has an effect on someone
else. Whether the effect is harmful or
not is how a normal person would judge it.
I was driving around with my wife the other day and we were talking
about someone and whether he did something wrong. It occurred to me that we cause hurt all the
time in just our normal course of living.
For example, my wife and I, at the time of this discussion, were spewing
out carbons into the environment. This
is harmful, but while the effect is generally distributed in the local environment,
the harm is of low levels. It is
irrelevant that this harm is a byproduct of how we live and how we get
around. Harm is harm. But in analyzing this, the amount of harm is
relevant in trying to determine whether I have a right to drive around or not
or whether it is moral behavior. This
whole business suggested a set of questions to me; questions one could ask of
any behavior or activity in order to determine how an adherent of the natural
rights view would judge the egregiousness of such behaviors or activities.
Here they are:
Who or what is negatively affected by the behavior or
activity? (Direction)
What level of harm is inflicted by this behavior or activity?
(Intensity)
How targeted is this harm? (Focus) My driving around affects
every human being on the planet. The
level of harm – I’m no scientist – is quite small. And in terms of targeting the harm, there is
no focus – I’m not focusing on any individual or group. Therefore, while I wish I could drive around
without polluting, I will continue to drive my car with a fairly clear
conscience.
Let’s look at another activity. A person runs a poker game with a marked
deck. Those negatively affected are the
invitees who are victimized by the cheater. The level of harm can be measured by the
amount of money these players/victims lose.
The focus is again these victims - pretty straightforward. What if the victims also engage in cheating
practices? Does that affect our
analysis? Is cheating cheaters
okay? This complicates the
analysis. But the situation is worth
discussing with students. The purpose
here is not to pass judgment, but to provide teachers a language by which to
lead an inquiry. It is useful to know
how people will tend to approach a value-related situation. Those of us who are influenced by a natural rights
view, I believe, will tend to ask these kinds of questions of those involved in
a problem situation.
I would add that if, on the other hand, a person is guided by
federalist values, he/she will not limit the questioning to these
questions. They would be further concerned
by the effects on the relevant community.
How does cheating at cards affect any friendship or any other sense of associations
among the players? Is gambling, as a
business activity, something that should be allowed or encouraged? Is there an anti-community effect of
gambling, especially if the stakes are significantly high relative to the
income of those involved? These kinds of
questions connote a concern for how the behavior or activity will undermine the
levels of federation among the participants.
But this kind of concern bypasses people who are influenced by a natural
rights view.
[1]
This is how I described federalist values in a
past posting:
The proposed code not only holds a
particular value as a trump value, but also presents a hierarchy of values.
There are three levels of values: trump value, key instrumental values, and
operational values. Here is a listing of these values:
• Trump Value: Societal welfare (as
experienced through societal survival and advancement)
• Key Instrumental Values: constitutional
integrity (liberty), equality, communal democracy, democratic pluralism and
diversity, compacted arrangements, critical and transparent deliberation,
collective problem-solving, earned trust, loyalty, patriotism, expertise
•
Operational
Values (partial listing): political engagement, due process, legitimate
authority, privacy, universality of human rights, tolerance, non-violence,
teamwork, consideration of others, economic sufficiency, security, localism.
No comments:
Post a Comment