In the last posting,
this blog introduced the ideas of Jonah Goldberg.[1] In a few words, that posting identified
Goldberg’s initial arguments of a foundational construct; a construct that in
his cited work reviews a rationale for a conservative view of politics. Here, this posting is interested in datum, the
description of reality he uses to build toward his conclusions. This posting’s writer agrees with Goldberg’s
view of what is without promoting his
political prescriptions.
To this point, this blog reported
Goldberg’s criteria – in the form of a mental construct – for what a “good” society
is:
a
practical, public construct allows for more people to live happy, prosperous,
meaningful lives without harming others in their pursuits of these aims; and
that the construct should call on the members of the community or collective to
fulfill a duty, to be engaged in this pursuit.
This general aim does
not call on a society to fulfill a religious or philosophic view of goodness or
for it to live out some historically mandated development.
Instead,
it is a day-to-day perspective in which a people live by a practical moral
sense of how humans, making up that society, muddle through challenges; how
they make the best of life. What this
blog finds most agreeable is that Goldberg argues that this is not the sole responsibility
of leaders – be they secular or sectarian – but the responsibility of the whole
societal population. And since, by lack
of a mandate, there is no a priori
authority to accomplish this basic responsibility, all citizens have a role,
the role of an equal partner.
What this blog now demands from
Goldberg – in order accept his view – is for him to provide a believable sense
that this is possible. Can human
society, within itself, behave in such a way that meaningful advances can (and
perhaps has) occurred in approaching that ideal. Once people have discovered this practical
view, have they acted, behaved, or conducted their affairs by learning from
their experiences?
Do they, in other words, find it
natural to reflect from what they experience, draw reasonable lessons from
those experiences, and be able to sufficiently keep in check counterproductive
emotions that can block one from seeing objective reality. This, in turn, begs the question: can humans, by the limitations of their
nature, learn what they need to learn in order to promote a population that
meets the above, Goldberg criteria?
Not
only is this blog interested in this question for general purposes – what is human
nature? – but the true answer goes a long way in determining what civics
education should be about. Earlier in
this blog, the topic of human nature was addressed. A posting cited the work of Gary Wills and
his analysis of how the term unalienable – or inalienable as stated in the
Declaration of Independence – is used by the founding generation. That usage is relevant to this current
concern.
The
founders believed that if a trait was part of one’s nature, it could not be
taken away. It was, therefore,
unalienable. And what, according to
them, marked or described that nature? Here
is what that earlier posting shared of Wills’ writing about the inalienable rights
of life and liberty:
[Francis]
Hutcheson [Scottish political writer of the 1700s] then divides rights into
perfect and imperfect. The perfect, as
essential to the public good, can be defended even with private force. The first example he gives is the right to
life. The basis of the societal bond is
benevolence, and no society can undermine its own fundamental value. Yet security in the possession of life is not
only the basis for all goods one can bestow on others; it is, more important,
the necessary precondition for doing
good – no man can be benevolent unless he is first alive…
He asserts the right of liberty on
similar grounds: “As nature has
implanted in each man a desire of his own happiness and many tender affections
toward others in some nearer relations of life, and granted to each one some
understanding and active powers, with a natural right exercise them for the
purpose of these natural affections, it is plain each one has a natural right
to exert his powers, according to his own judgment and inclination, for these
purposes, in all such industry, labor, or amusements as are not hurtful to
others in their persons or goods, while no more public interests necessarily
require his labors or require that his actions should be under the direction of
others. This right we call natural
liberty.[2]
The message, then, is humans are naturally capable of being benevolent,
at least according to this strain of thought.
In addition, societies must afford this natural tendency an outlet in
order to allow its citizens the necessary mechanism by which to progress. As such, it cannot be given or taken away;
i.e., it is inalienable.
Is that true? If so, Goldberg’s aim should not be difficult
to achieve. Yet, history has ample
examples that benevolence does not seem to be the fallback mode of most
people’s behavior. Ask any parent and
he/she will attest that teaching their children to exhibit “good,” benevolent behavior
is a challenge in and of itself.
So, what follows
will be reviewing Goldberg’s answer to this question. Despite his initial tone of positivity, what
will follow brings to question Hutchinson’s positive take on how humans want to
behave in their natural state.
[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide
of the West: How the Rebirth of
Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American
Democracy (New York, NY: Crown
Forum, 2018).
[2] Gary Wills, Inventing
America: Jefferson’s Declaration of
Independence
(New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1978/2018), 216-217.
Emphasis in the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment