All posts tagged community

Lesson 12: Community Loyalty (Sandel, Chapter 9)

Hebrew word, HesedIf I asked you who you are, chances are you would describe yourself with a list of the groups to which you belong: your family, neighborhood, ethnic group, town, and nation, as well other social affiliations. Sandel claims these communities shape our ethics as much, if not more, than abstract rational reasoning or voluntary choices. We understand who we are, what we believe, and what we are to do by identifying with the stories, histories, and traditions of these communities. It is downright silly that we harp so much on individual freedom, when we are radically dependent on one another in our highly specialized world.

Think of all the profound implications when Lupe’s granddaughter, Cassie, reported she does not think of herself in terms of race, but rather as a Bolivian. Consider how much Christian ethics are based on the story told weekly by the Church. When the Old Testament Torah commands care for the weak, it tells the story of how God rescued the Hebrew community when it was enslaved in Egypt. When Christians call for love, they tell the story of Jesus’ words and deeds– even dying for us.

As much as we might understand the important role our communities play in passing down the lessons from the past and checking our self-centered pursuit of happiness, we immediately feel the tension between what Sandel labels corporate responsibility and collective selfishness. We feel a deeper loyalty with those in our own group, more common humanity with our families than our nations. Yet we also have to live with some awful past history. Too often we have found our identity by labeling and even oppressing outsiders. What is Western Civilization to make of the Holocaust, or the Church of the Inquisition?

It seems obvious that we must always be ready to correct the stories of our communities, so they are relevant to contemporary situations. We have done that with great effort and sacrifice in overcoming slavery, granting rights to women, accepting gays and lesbians. We, also, need to constantly compliment and check our communal ethics with the natural and voluntary approaches Sandel discussed in previous chapters.

My guess is almost all of us appreciate how our families form our understandings of right and wrong, but what about the other communities to which you belong? Does solidarity with other Americans mean we have an ethical obligation to “buy American”? Does it support an “America first, right or wrong” stance? “American Exceptionalism”? Can we consider patriotism a virtue? If so, what does it involve? How far does it go?

Bob and Derek spoke of the difficulties of individuals engaging in a public conversation about the common good in our large, pluralistic, bureaucratic communities. Is it any easier, if we see the conversation involving our communities rather than individuals? Is the conversation more workable with smaller groups? We have seen the limitations of civil discussion in the global village that has no history or tradition. Does it offer more hope to “Think globally and act locally” as the ecolologists counsel?

Lately, I’ve heard the word” community” used mostly by online groups, for example referring to “My Facebook community” or my “Facebook friends.” Coming a close second would be gays and lesbians speaking of “the community.” Are these new forms of community that have the potential to shape ethics?

Lesson 11: Aristotle’s Justice (Sandel, Chapter 8)

AristotleAristotle believed humans are political creatures by nature. He thinks this is apparent when we see how our speech enables us to relate to one another quite differently than beasts or gods. Politics not only gathers us into communities for defense against foreign powers, but also for using rational speech rather than physical violence to control physical force within the society.

Justice then is a matter of politics. We can discern what it is just by debating what the common good of our society is. We promote this by enacting laws that honor and reward actions appropriate to this purpose. Justice is not based on a neutral government maintaining law and order by settling conflicts between individuals fairly. It rather involves the government cultivating habits that lead to the good character that benefits the community. In other words, justice depends more on education than law enforcement.

Because he felt the chief obstacle to justice is ignorance, Aristotle thought this debate should take place among the learned, those with the ability to do it appropriately. A modern Aristotelian approach might see the whole community engaged in this discussion of the common good. Of course, we have to ask if this is possible in a large, pluralistic society. It might work in his small city-state, in a New England town meeting, or in a profession where goals are shared and evident, but a larger diverse community presents more difficulty. Our present political gridlock in which our officials refuse to converse as Aristotle proposes demonstrates this clearly.

Our present inability to discuss what a common good might be contributes to our resorting continually to the violence justice is supposed to replace. We end up with slogans, such as “the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun”. From Aristotle’s perspective that is a response typical of a beast, not a human.

Our inability is also evident in what our society honors and rewards. We often claim the purpose of government is to provide defense and jobs. But we do not seem to reward and honor those who do this. Yes, we have a big defense budget to protect against foreign military aggression, but we fail to defend citizens from internal powers that take advantage of the weak. Powerful corporations seem to control government rather than the other way around. And rather than honor those who provide jobs and products for our citizens, we reward those who play games for profit. This includes not only highly paid athletes, but also financiers who use the stock market not for supporting industry but as a means for gambling and advertisers whose aim is profit rather than providing a product. If we can judge a society by looking at what it rewards and honors, we do not do too well.

Christians ethics are often based on an Aristotelean model. We discuss what is involved in the common good Jesus describes in his pictures of the future Kingdom of God and then honor and reward those actions that lead us to that beloved community in which all have enough. We also appreciate what the ancient philosopher said about language. However, we believe the problem has to do with sin rather than ignorance as can be seen when we use the Tower of Babel story as an illustration of evil. Even though we appreciate Aristotle’s work on making ethics relevant to real life rather than abstract reasoning, we think he missed an important aspect of human nature.

Give some thought to what you would consider the common good of our society. What is the picture you have of the community for which we are striving? What would we reward and honor if we all agreed on this purpose?