The NATURAL RIGHTS' VIEW OF MORALITY

This posting poses the following question:  is there a sense of morality one can ascribe to the natural rights view – the dominant view of governance and politics in America today?  In the course of daily life, in this political cultural environment, one can find oneself wondering why people behave as they do, especially as that behavior affects fellow citizens. 

In terms of addressing the major concerns of the day, for example the opioid crisis, one can readily see a general sense of detachment as to the fate of others.  After all, under a natural rights regime, everyone is sovereign and basically responsible for his/her fate.  But that does not prevent or even discourage one from wondering about various related attributes one can ascribe this view. 

In terms of when one observes or is victimized by unfriendly, unconcerned, or even hostile acts of others, are those “others” lazy, hold deep-seated animosities, or feel some other anti-social bias when he/she is observed being selfish or self-centered? We often wonder what makes others “tick.”  An example might be why does a neighbor not keep his/her house presentable or keep it in a sloppy state?  Every neighborhood has that neighbor.

When such a question involves a more important concern such as a professional doctor or lawyer’s practice that operates without sufficient levels of conscientiousness, one is tempted to assume that decisions to behave that way are based on either some morally deficient belief or an indifference to the moral issue(s) at stake.  These concerns can extend from judgements concerning that professional’s work ethic or how the behavior in question might affect patients, clients, or other people.

Based on these overall, everyday concern, this posting identifies what this writer believes to be the likely moral civic view Americans, including civics teachers, adopt and it identifies the degree to which one can hold that view responsible for the tenor of civic behavior among the populous including what one finds in American schools.  And unfortunately, that includes higher levels of hurtful actions toward neighbors, workers, professionals, and others that one encounters.[1] 

For the readers of this blog, they know the claim here is that that outlook is called the natural rights view.  And that view has affected the moral calculations most Americans perform in determining their moral choices – choices that come about from morally challenging situations of everyday life. 

By reviewing what one can determine are educators’ – those who abides by the tenets of this view – moral positions are, one can begin to understand what makes them “tick” in making their curricular choices.  And by doing so, one can begin to understand the moral culture one finds in American schools today.

What is described here (and in the next posting), of course, does not pertain to all of these professional educators equally.  The range of commitment varies substantially.  But one can claim that in the main, they share the beliefs this posting identifies as being the tenets of how they see their social and political world.  They not only believe in these beliefs but also feel a commitment toward them even if they cannot always verbalize the content and/or level of that commitment – its effects on a person are often at the subconscious level.[2]

Interestingly, natural rights’ beliefs relate to a central and on-going tension in the nation’s constitutional history.  The tension is the struggle between a belief in liberty and a belief in equality – a recurring topic of Western political writers.  That is, that literature has analyzed the inherent clashing ideals that these values (or what some might call qualities) represent.  Usually, that tension is exhibited by the competing commitments Americans have between an allegiance to individualism and an allegiance to communal values.[3]

The central moral question this tension relates to is:  when reality or policy strives to advance or protect liberty at the expense of equality, or vice versa, which of these ideals is one willing to sacrifice or minimize?  In terms of a nation’s politics, this decision often confronts policy makers and average citizens and is, at least, the subtext of what the polity must resolve. 

For example, in terms of the regulating business activity as that activity affects some employee benefits, a regulation is likely to restrain a businessperson's liberty.  But by instituting the regulation it can advance the safety or economic welfare of workers that would result in promoting equality.   In this example, though, both positions might claim it is advancing the community although evidence suggests businesspeople’s interests are not so broadly felt.[4]

For those who support a natural rights construct, they tend to share a bias favoring liberty over equality.  For natural rights advocates, in the extreme, liberty is their trump or ultimate value.  That is, in terms of civic beliefs and feeling, that value is the most important one in their civic morality.  Such cries as, “Give me liberty or give me death” can be heard at some level of consciousness.  This does not mean they do not value equality, necessarily, but its importance does not measure up to liberty’s.

This has various implications.  The above hints at some of them.  The next posting will pick up on this review, but before bringing this posting to a close, this blogger wants to remind the reader what the goal is.  The concern here is to explain the political culture students find in schools.  And by doing so, hopefully those educators who want to promote a more collaborative and communal environment can further their appreciation of the challenge such a goal faces when they work in the typical American secondary school.

---

[1] Robert Gutierrez, “How Effective Is Civics Education?”  An online PDF posted essay this writer submitted to make the case that civics education is highly ineffective in helping prepare youngsters ot being good citizens.  It uses evidence of how they and adults meet certain civic obligations, like voting or being knowledgeable about civic issues.  To gain access to the essay, the reader can use the following URL:  https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CED163627385DD3C!11783&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AHFo6PFBnpUkePw .

[2] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011) AND Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind:  Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York, NY:  Pantheon Books, 2012).

[3] According to Steven Pinker, this tension is well-based on human biologically determined psychic dispositions of all people.  See Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1997).  He places the bias to naturally lean toward individualism.  In that determination one can also cite 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).

[4] See Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times (New York, NY:  Public Affairs, 2019).