Sandel ends his book championing a new politics of the common good, and suggests four possible themes that would support it.
Citizenship, sacrifice, and service. He writes “If a just society requires a strong sense of community, it must find a way to cultivate in citizens a concern for the whole, a dedication to the common good.” He believes our public schools and military once contributed to this by bringing young people from different backgrounds together. Because that is not happening any more, he recommends proposals, such as helping students with college tuition in exchange for so-many hours of public service.
The moral limits of the market. He laments expanding “markets and market reasoning into spheres of life traditionally governed by non-market norms,” such as using mercenaries in the military and prison systems, selling humans and parts for profit, paying people for doing what used to be a moral obligation. He believes we have to start talking about the dangers of making profit the motive for all social activities.
Inequality, solidarity, and civic virtue. He and many others believe a just society can not survive with the extreme separation of the rich and poor we find today. It does not take much to see that the rich and poor increasingly lead separate lives; or to perceive the separation leads to a tyranny where wealth controls all. One proposal for rectifying this is to make a concerted effort to rebuild the commons we have lost. This would involve public places, such as parks, schools, community centers, and public schools. It would, also, involve public events, such as concerts, plays, debates, and group meetings.
We obviously are moving in the opposite direction when we open public lands to private industrialization. Also, left unsaid is the necessity to redefine what we mean by private property.
Ivan Illich felt the restoration of the commons involves rediscovering the virtue of friendship. Rather than depending on the government and experts to do everything for us, we would be encouraged to do our own community planning.
A politics of moral engagement. Sandel feels we have to acknowledge the role of ethics and religion in politics and law. He is confident we can do this and still have discussions about our common good on the basis of mutual respect. He ends the book with “A politics of moral engagement is not only a more inspiring ideal than a politics of avoidance. It is also a more promising basis for a just society.”
My face-to-face classes were generally pessimistic about these proposals. They pointed to the uncivil ways we have been arguing about abortion and sex. I am more optimistic, based on my experience with small groups in which diverse people are free to express themselves and encouraged to listen others with different opinions. My only rule for such groups is “no put downs.” It works amazingly well.
Gene Outka suggests such groups could be based on all acknowledging the Golden Rule, accepting truth telling as a standard, and agreeing to disagree.
What do you think about Sandel’s proposals?
