Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Civic virtue vs laws

December 27th 2007 01:27
More laws isn't always a bad thing, but perhaps, sometimes, there are better alternatives.

A couple of ideas on this frickin' huge topic: --

-- Paul Strathern in Confucius in 90 minutes (1999) quotes the Master as saying: "Lead the people by edicts, restrain them by punishment -- and they will keep out of trouble but develop no sense of shame. Lead them by virtue, restrain them with ritual -- and they will develop a sense of shame and reform themselves by joining together."

-- Can't remember who said it (Machiavelli? Sun Tzu?), but force (including the force of law) is often a bandaid solution -- if it's the only thing that keeps your soldiers in line, your population in check, then your rule will be weak where your power is weak.

Hamburg protest May 2007


-- David Marquand ("Accidental hero", New Statesman, Thursday 6 December 2007) mentions JS Mill's "insight that democratic citizenship is a practice, which has to be learned through strenuous activity in small groups, not a chocolate bar to be handed down from on high by a benevolent state".

-- Will Kymlicka (Contemporary political philosophy, 2002) writes:

Many classical liberals believed that a liberal democracy could function effectively even in the absence of an especially virtuous citizenry, by creating checks and balances... Even if each person pursued her own self-interest, without regard for the common good, one set of private interests would check another set of private interests. Kant, for example, thought that the problem of good government "can be solved even for a race of devils"... However, it has become clear that procedural-institutional mechanisms to balance self-interest are not enough, and that some level of civic virtue and public-spiritedness is required...

Consider the many ways that public policy relies on responsible personal lifestyle decisions: the state will be unable to provide adequate health care if citizens do not act responsibly with respect to their own health... the state will be unable to meet the needs of children, the elderly, or the disabled if citizens do not agree to share this responsibility... the state cannot protect the environment if citizens are unwilling to reduce, reuse, and recycle... the ability of the government to regulate the economy can be undermined if citizens borrow immoderate amounts or demand excessive salary increases; attempts to create a fairer society will flounder if citizens are chronically intolerant of difference and generally lacking in a sense of justice.


St Anthony tormented by demons - Martin Schongauer - 1480


***

First image is of a protest in Hamburg on Monday 28 May 2007 -- from this website.



104
Vote
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   
subscribe to this blog 


   

   


Comments
5 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Damo

December 27th 2007 02:00
Nonymous
A very big subject with lotsa conflicts.

Imperfect beings trying to tell each other how to be perfect.

Many people against all form of dictatorship unless they are running it.

Comment by Mountain Fog

December 27th 2007 06:47
The far right never learns, they always revert to type by using draconian laws and punishment, and in a way we are lucky they do, for if it gets too clever/subtle at manipulation of society, I fear we will be doomed!

Great quotes...very thought provoking "Nony"!!

cheers and have a great New Year!

fog

Comment by D. Armenta

December 28th 2007 01:50
Leading by example rather than by force and establishing fair standards of civic law always seemed so glaringly obvious to me as the best way to oversee a society; but I guess it's not that obvious after all...

In the real world, one must always plan for the smattering of jerks present in any and every group of people, always and forever.

Comment by Nonymous

January 4th 2008 19:52
Dear Damo,

Personally, I don't believe in "perfection" of civic virtues for all sorts of reasons.

One reason is that what values it's desirable for a citizenry to have presumably varies depending on circumstance -- there's no static ideal.

Another is that diversity of values might itself be desirable.

Dear Fog,

The far right never learns, they always revert to type by using draconian laws and punishment

You're probably correct, but just to complicate things slightly...

If you view National socialism as far right and Soviet Russia as far left, both forms of government can clearly be "draconian".

If you consider the American "right", it consists of a variety of interests -- including some in favour of freedom -- such as libertarians and anarchists, gun nuts, and laissez-faire capitalists.

If you consider the Australian "left", maybe it doesn't ask for draconian laws and harsh penalties, but greater regulation is often called for -- for instance, in terms of environmental management.

Feminism (which doesn't cleanly fit on the left or right) has often called for greater intrusion of the law into families -- to protect people against domestic violence.

Dear DA,

Leading by example rather than by force and establishing fair standards of civic law always seemed so glaringly obvious to me as the best way to oversee a society; but I guess it's not that obvious after all...

In the real world, one must always plan for the smattering of jerks present in any and every group of people, always and forever.

If I'm reading rightly, your second paragraph qualifies your first -- you favour example over regulation, but you want there to be regulation just in case.

I find this sort of balancing question very difficult to talk about in the abstract, without a specific issue... But two thoughts that come to mind are:

-- when you make some sort of coercive law to safeguard people, often you're balancing, among other things, actual harm to freedom against hypothetical danger -- a tricky matter (I've sort of written on this issue in relation to anti-terrorism laws);

-- one takes a risk every time one crosses the road. How much risk is too much? -- I'm not sure that people who are gamblers and risk prone are necessarily less rational than people who are paranoid and risk averse...

Comment by JE. Reyes Saulog

March 2nd 2008 03:35
This might be obvious but: laws (at least to me) come off as oppression, something that is in need of being fought against. Maybe I think that way because I am young (20 yrs), but when I see someone lead by example I tend to fold like a paper in wind. Another things that comes to mind in D. Armenta's comment is that there is always a hierarchy, no matter what, so that could be the reason that leading by example will never work. A need to be over someone...I could be wrong

Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
3 Posts
1 Posts
422 Posts dating from August 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0
Moderated by Nonymous
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]