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.
-- 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:
First image is of a protest in Hamburg on Monday 28 May 2007 -- from this website.
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.
-- 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. |
***
First image is of a protest in Hamburg on Monday 28 May 2007 -- from this website.
| 104 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog









Comment by Damo
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
Infognito
Screen Trek
QUOTE ME NO QUOTES!
Great quotes...very thought provoking "Nony"!!
cheers and have a great New Year!
fog
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
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
Philosophy Blog
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,
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,
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