One recurring argument this blog has proffered is that civics
education should recommit to moral or values related objectives. That is, it should ask students to deal with
moral dilemmas one finds in the political landscape. Not only should such analysis target
governmental policy – at whatever level – but address the moral actions of
citizens and interest groups. After all,
these entities are partnered within the compact-al arrangement that the
nation’s constitution sets up.
Probably, no
other concept lies at the bottom of this concern than does justice. Fortunately, the thoughts of Michael Sandel
are out there to assist any discussion over which moral issues should be
addressed. This posting reports on the
related priorities he poses that serve to organize his contribution.[1] Specifically, he highlights the function justice
plays in determining what values to which one should ascribe.
To begin, he
points out that justice has to do with distribution, especially the
distribution of assets, but also with punishments that often restrict or confiscate
assets. In short, questions of justice
and their resolution affect how much or how many assets a person or group receives
or should be able to protect. These
assets take various forms that include goods, welfare, freedom or liberty, and
those associated with virtue.
Along with visualizing them as
cherished objects, they can be ideals and, in turn, they are placed in priority. These determinations can reflect various ways
of considering moral issues and/or of developing moral principles. As a matter of fact, people tend to use the
last three listed asset categories – welfare, freedom or liberty, and virtue –
as central concerns in their moral thinking.
This is no more the case than in how they pertain to political realities
and their related issues.
Sandel uses
these to organize his thoughts and starts with the ideal, welfare. With that concern one is guided to consider
economic factors, not only on how the economy might affect individuals, but also
how the factors affect the whole society or polity. One can readily agree that no single ideal
captures more attention in the political realm of discussion and debate than the
concerns over welfare.
Maybe the famous quip, “it’s the economy,
stupid,” oversimplifies things, but there is a reason it became famous. Generally, the give and take over the economy
refers to or asks about various questions.
They include,
·
What
should a society’s economic goals be?
·
If,
and one cannot see it being otherwise, that includes avenues toward prosperity,
who should share in any achieved success and to what degree?
·
And,
what policies – both in the public and private sectors – lead to the highest level
of economic growth possible?
It turns out these are not isolated concerns; how one answers
one, economic theory states, affects how the others are also answered.
And prosperity is not just a nice
thing to happen; it adds to or makes possible the realization of acceptable
levels of overall welfare. That is, as
utilitarianists point out, welfare is defined as the greatest good for the
greatest number. While one does not need
to buy into the utilitarianist argument, it is hard to disagree with the notion
that the greatest good for the greatest number is not something to avoid, all
other things being equal.
The second ideal is freedom and here
one’s attention is drawn to how freedom is defined. For most, it relates and emphasizes how and
why individuals are respected, i.e., to what degree does the individual enjoy
rights. Now, not all who study such
things agree either as to what are rights, or, once defined, which rights are
important. But one can note, most
theories about rights place them in some hierarchy of importance.
For most who ascribe to the notion
that history bends toward justice (which does not necessarily pertain to this
blogger), they buy into some general listing of importance as indicated in the
US Bill of Rights or the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. These listings include the right of free
speech, freedom of association, freedom of religiosity, etc. These listings generally serve to place
limits on the power of majorities to curb individual prerogatives which often
lead to highly contentious politics.
This concern over rights demonstrates
how concerns over welfare and freedom affect one another. The question, for example, arises: Do certain freedom policies enhance or
restrict welfare by either inducing or restricting the performances of businesses? And here is where one finds a recurring area
of concern within this nation’s – or just about any nation’s – political
discourse. What should be the
relationship between the business sector and government?
This question solicits two basic
answers. One, is the laissez-faire
argument. That argument holds that
welfare – economic performance – reaches its highest levels when economic
actors are free to do their thing. Any
interference – mostly emanating from government – only hinders the economy from
preforming at its full capacity.
On the other hand, government
interventionists question the laissez faire conclusion – where’s the evidence
for such a sweeping bias?[2] – and
point out economies that run without strong oversight and regulations lead to
economic disasters – such as the Great Depression. Such hands-off policies also leads to unjust
distribution of economic goods – such as income and consequently wealth.
This latter concern seems to be of
prime importance to those who favor intervention while laissez-faire advocates
minimize its importance as long as the ground rules for any results are judged to
be fair – let the chips fall where they may.
And with that, Sandel turns to the
concern about virtue. He also uses the
term, good life, to describe this ideal.
Here, probably, of the three listed ideals, one finds the highest levels
disagreement among those who consider these three ideals. It also engenders the most motivation to “get
involved” in the political goings on of one’s locality. Often this concern relates to religious
beliefs or beliefs over human worth.
Sandel cites those who have notoriety
for involving themselves over issues of virtue ranging from Martin Luther King,
Jr. to the Taliban. This variance
indicates that there is a wide array of beliefs associated with virtue including:
what constitutes virtue, what is/are its
origins, and who has it? It most
directly is concerned with what constitutes a just society (a bit circular?). And such concerns range from disagreements at
the societal level, with its political realm, to debates individuals have within
themselves – the questions can be that unsettling to those involved in any of a
multitude of related issues.
Surely, any thinking human being will
confront dilemmas in life whose origins deal with a concern over what is
virtuous and what is not. They can
include: how one provides for elderly
parents, where one sends his/her children to school, how to react to incidences
of injustice one might observe in public spaces such as on a public bus, etc.? Professional moral-thinkers, such as Sandel,
analyze moral situations and gleam from them generalizable questions and
proffer thought-out responses to those questions. This blog will look at this topic again.
No comments:
Post a Comment