I've been enjoying reading these Substack posts of yours. I find them inspiring--and well-written.
I wanted to observe something about this third post: it begins with a kind of moderate, reasonable skepticism about what virtue is and requires of us in political life, especially from the Biblical perspective, about which even followers of Jesus might disagree. But it ends more confidently than it began, speaking without irony of traditional morality, a healthy society, and the foundations of virtue, as if they were unproblematic and uncontroversial. I wonder to which side you find yourself leaning more, in your unguarded moments--the skeptical beginning or the confident conclusion.
If I have followed you well, one of your most basic points throughout your three posts is that liberalism--liberalism understood as requiring neutrality, especially moral neutrality on the part of the lawmakers towards those obliged to obey the law, is not only unworkable because impossible in practice--most laws imply some kind of value judgment just by being laws at all (a point that Eric Jackson makes below)--but also bad because the goal of neutrality is morally vacuous and tends to elevate a morally neutral stance towards things within the soul, thus enervating our moral energy and making us all more myopic, self-serving, and overly ideological, which is bad for the common good.
Here's a question for you: does moving beyond this state of affairs require abandoning the Declaration and the claims of the Declaration about the origin of rights in nature and of the purpose of government, which is to secure those rights?
Jack, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I haven't fully worked out how to think of the American founding, but I am moving toward the view that the liberalism of Locke and Madison is hard to sustain on its own terms, precisely because, as you mentioned, I believe that it tends to move towards the radical autonomy and atomism that we see in modern liberal societies. I agree with Patrick Deneen that early liberals were drawing on (or cannibalizing) resources derived from pre-liberal societies, such as religion, intact families, moderation, etc. A lot of the enlightement philosophers were sexually conservative, for instance. I don't disagree that we have natural rights, but I think liberalism ignores the proper foundation of rights, which is an overarching moral theory that involve virtue and the common good. On the other hand, I generally support liberal institutions such as separation of powers, religious toleration, and free speech. I think they are compatible with the classical worldview in some form. In future posts I hope to unpack this further.
Douglas, appreciate the thought-provoking post. I did have a couple of questions that I wanted to understand your perspective on. One of them is the “Broken windows” theory. It seems that you’re advocating allowing certain small things to go, it seems to be that allowing a lot of “small” things to slide it leads to ignoring the larger things. What would the affect be of allowing small things that the “costs of enforcement dwarf the benefits” to be legal? The real-world examples I can think of include not prosecuting theft which has led to a rise of about 9% in theft. (independent & City, 2018) While the property crimes did decrease in 2021 compared to 2020 (but are still higher than before proposition 47), aggravated assaults and homicides are up, giving some credence to this theory. (Ortiz & Ward, 2021) And another experiment that appeared to support the theory is the reduction in crime in New York under Rudy Giuliani. (Francis, 2003)
Another question I had is with the definition of “virtue” and “vices”. There was some discussion in the 2nd part about virtues and vices, but I’m not sure I have a clear picture of what constitutes a virtue vs. a vice in your writings. Could you enlighten me on what each of them are please?
The last point I wanted to make was where you mentioned “In America, one often hears that the state shouldn’t “legislate morality” or that people have a right to do anything so long as they aren’t “hurting anyone.”” While I broadly agree with what you said, I would argue that any law is an attempt to legislate morality, it just may not be rooted in religious, natural law, or other recognizable moral code. But someone is passing the law because they believe it is right. But thank you for your writings!
Eric, you make a good point about broken windows theory. Since the classical tradition teaches that virtue is a habit and that people often look to the norms of their society when forming moral opinions, there is a valid concern that tolerating bad behavior will produce more of it. That's partly an empirical question, about which I am not fully informed. I know broken windows theory has been criticized in recent years. But I certainly don't approve of left-wing DAs decriminalizing certain "minor" offenses, like theft or assault, because of the alleged "disproportionate impact" on African-Americans. Theft is destructive of human community, and it's a shame to see stores leaving poor neighborhoods because they can't stop shoplifting. Moreover, most people can abstain from theft and assault.
Regarding virtue, you are right that I haven't really defined it. I am mostly assuming a fairly traditional definition of virtue. There are four "cardinal" virtues: prudence (or practical wisdom), justice, courage, and moderation. There's a lot under each of those categories. A lot of political decision-making would fall under prudence, for instance. Stealing would violate justice. I think a big difference between classical and modern worldviews regards moderation (also called temperance). Modern worldviews, including liberalism, tend to be lenient toward acquisitiveness, including the acquisition of money (greed) and pleasure (food, drink, sex, etc.). The classical worldview sees the good life as requiring restraining one's desires. Of course, as a Christian, I would supplement the "cardinal" virtues with the "theological" virtues of faith, hope, and love.
Doug,
I've been enjoying reading these Substack posts of yours. I find them inspiring--and well-written.
I wanted to observe something about this third post: it begins with a kind of moderate, reasonable skepticism about what virtue is and requires of us in political life, especially from the Biblical perspective, about which even followers of Jesus might disagree. But it ends more confidently than it began, speaking without irony of traditional morality, a healthy society, and the foundations of virtue, as if they were unproblematic and uncontroversial. I wonder to which side you find yourself leaning more, in your unguarded moments--the skeptical beginning or the confident conclusion.
If I have followed you well, one of your most basic points throughout your three posts is that liberalism--liberalism understood as requiring neutrality, especially moral neutrality on the part of the lawmakers towards those obliged to obey the law, is not only unworkable because impossible in practice--most laws imply some kind of value judgment just by being laws at all (a point that Eric Jackson makes below)--but also bad because the goal of neutrality is morally vacuous and tends to elevate a morally neutral stance towards things within the soul, thus enervating our moral energy and making us all more myopic, self-serving, and overly ideological, which is bad for the common good.
Here's a question for you: does moving beyond this state of affairs require abandoning the Declaration and the claims of the Declaration about the origin of rights in nature and of the purpose of government, which is to secure those rights?
Jack, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I haven't fully worked out how to think of the American founding, but I am moving toward the view that the liberalism of Locke and Madison is hard to sustain on its own terms, precisely because, as you mentioned, I believe that it tends to move towards the radical autonomy and atomism that we see in modern liberal societies. I agree with Patrick Deneen that early liberals were drawing on (or cannibalizing) resources derived from pre-liberal societies, such as religion, intact families, moderation, etc. A lot of the enlightement philosophers were sexually conservative, for instance. I don't disagree that we have natural rights, but I think liberalism ignores the proper foundation of rights, which is an overarching moral theory that involve virtue and the common good. On the other hand, I generally support liberal institutions such as separation of powers, religious toleration, and free speech. I think they are compatible with the classical worldview in some form. In future posts I hope to unpack this further.
Douglas, appreciate the thought-provoking post. I did have a couple of questions that I wanted to understand your perspective on. One of them is the “Broken windows” theory. It seems that you’re advocating allowing certain small things to go, it seems to be that allowing a lot of “small” things to slide it leads to ignoring the larger things. What would the affect be of allowing small things that the “costs of enforcement dwarf the benefits” to be legal? The real-world examples I can think of include not prosecuting theft which has led to a rise of about 9% in theft. (independent & City, 2018) While the property crimes did decrease in 2021 compared to 2020 (but are still higher than before proposition 47), aggravated assaults and homicides are up, giving some credence to this theory. (Ortiz & Ward, 2021) And another experiment that appeared to support the theory is the reduction in crime in New York under Rudy Giuliani. (Francis, 2003)
Another question I had is with the definition of “virtue” and “vices”. There was some discussion in the 2nd part about virtues and vices, but I’m not sure I have a clear picture of what constitutes a virtue vs. a vice in your writings. Could you enlighten me on what each of them are please?
The last point I wanted to make was where you mentioned “In America, one often hears that the state shouldn’t “legislate morality” or that people have a right to do anything so long as they aren’t “hurting anyone.”” While I broadly agree with what you said, I would argue that any law is an attempt to legislate morality, it just may not be rooted in religious, natural law, or other recognizable moral code. But someone is passing the law because they believe it is right. But thank you for your writings!
References:
independent, A. P. T. A. P. is an, & City, not-for-profit news cooperative headquartered in N. Y. (2018, June 13). Thefts rise after California reduces criminal penalties, report says. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-thefts-rise-california-20180613-story.html
Ortiz, E., & Ward, J. (2021, July 14). After San Francisco shoplifting video goes viral, officials argue thefts aren’t rampant. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-san-francisco-shoplifting-video-goes-viral-officials-argue-thefts-n1273848
Francis, D. (2003, January). What Reduced Crime in New York City. NBER. https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/what-reduced-crime-new-york-city
Eric, you make a good point about broken windows theory. Since the classical tradition teaches that virtue is a habit and that people often look to the norms of their society when forming moral opinions, there is a valid concern that tolerating bad behavior will produce more of it. That's partly an empirical question, about which I am not fully informed. I know broken windows theory has been criticized in recent years. But I certainly don't approve of left-wing DAs decriminalizing certain "minor" offenses, like theft or assault, because of the alleged "disproportionate impact" on African-Americans. Theft is destructive of human community, and it's a shame to see stores leaving poor neighborhoods because they can't stop shoplifting. Moreover, most people can abstain from theft and assault.
Regarding virtue, you are right that I haven't really defined it. I am mostly assuming a fairly traditional definition of virtue. There are four "cardinal" virtues: prudence (or practical wisdom), justice, courage, and moderation. There's a lot under each of those categories. A lot of political decision-making would fall under prudence, for instance. Stealing would violate justice. I think a big difference between classical and modern worldviews regards moderation (also called temperance). Modern worldviews, including liberalism, tend to be lenient toward acquisitiveness, including the acquisition of money (greed) and pleasure (food, drink, sex, etc.). The classical worldview sees the good life as requiring restraining one's desires. Of course, as a Christian, I would supplement the "cardinal" virtues with the "theological" virtues of faith, hope, and love.