Morality, liberalism and virtue

[Michael]

Contemporary liberalism's insistence that morality is a mere matter of rights and obligations empties life of its ethical meaning. We need a return to the virtue ethics of the pre-moderns, and a renewed conception of the good life

By Edward Skidelsky

Morality is once again on the lips of politicians and commentators. David Cameron has warned that we are "becoming quite literally a de-moralised society, where nobody will tell the truth any more about what is good and bad." He is echoed by Richard Reeves, new director of Demos, who argued in last month's Prospect that Britain's poor lack not only the material but also the moral resources to better their lot in life.

Behind these comments lies a flickering recognition that our nation's central problems are moral, not economic. But any deeper reflection runs up against a principle entrenched in the liberal mind—that individuals are sovereign in their own sphere, and that only when someone infringes on others may he be rebuked or punished. "Neither one person, nor any number of persons," declared John Stuart Mill, the originator of this principle, "is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it."

Mill's principle has come to shape western public doctrine. It lies behind the social legislation of the 1960s and the anti-discriminatory legislation of the past four decades. Neither left nor right dares reject it openly. Yet in historical terms, it is an anomaly, a departure from the common sense of our species.

Article: Read More (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10330)

I'm always of a mixed opinion of this type of approach. Yes it all sounds good on the surface, but the more you think about it, it seems like it represents a return to that which modern morality ran away from in the first place.

I might add that I'm more interested in the first few paragraphs quote above than I am in the whole of the article-essay.

Any thoughts? Can public morality be restored by turning back the clock on modernity and individualism? This new interest in virtue sounds good, but virtue all too easily becomes something inherited after a while. That's the real lesson of early feudal history - Charlemagne's officers, a virtuous lot, established themselves as dukes in the provinces of the empire - and virtue became enshrined to their children.

[partofme]

This strikes me as a want to control the personal behavior of others so that when the person suggesting it goes out he won't have to put up with seeing other people behave in ways that are not to his liking. I'll admit that I have the same impulse myself under the right circumstances but I try to be tolerant so long as I'm not directly bothered.

[Dominick]

This strikes me as a want to control the personal behavior of others so that when the person suggesting it goes out he won't have to put up with seeing other people behave in ways that are not to his liking.
Spot on. It's a cry for totalitarianism. I don't think the author would remain all too thrilled if he were 'beamed' to the 17th century or so.
The world is global, diverse and pluralistic, Mr. Skidelsky, and morality is relative. Deal with it or crawl in a cabin on a remote mountain.

[Michael]

Yes, I agree with this general point - too many people think morality is all about controlling other people's behavior. That's not morality, that's just authoritarian politics.

Morality in my mind is all about controlling one's own behavior. One doesn't need laws for that.

And virtue isn't inheritable. That concept is one of the one's that has made our history so bloody and warlike.

[Korimyr the Rat]

The world is global, diverse and pluralistic, Mr. Skidelsky, and morality is relative. Deal with it or crawl in a cabin on a remote mountain.

The world may be diverse and pluralistic, but that is no reason that every community must be so-- after all, is that not the imposition of homogeneous moral values in itself?

It is not enough for a society's whole teaching on moral conduct to be "leave other people alone". That is not enough to hold a society together-- and the less a society holds together, the less capable it is of surviving hard times and catastrophe.

Our society must, if it is to remain prosperous and survive, return to the teaching of moral virtues and the belief that man is not just his own man-- he is also a member of a family and a community, at the very least, and has obligations to both.

Morality in my mind is all about controlling one's own behavior. One doesn't need laws for that.

No, but the law does provide reinforcement-- both positive and negative-- for desirable behaviors, and it is necessary for a functional society to have common moral values. The law may have no authority when it comes to settling differences of moral opinion, but it is a terrific tool for shaping peoples' beliefs.

[Michael]

The world may be diverse and pluralistic, but that is no reason that every community must be so-- after all, is that not the imposition of homogeneous moral values in itself?
Excellent point. The diversity of human culture ought to permit diversity of morality.

It is not enough for a society's whole teaching on moral conduct to be "leave other people alone". That is not enough to hold a society together-- and the less a society holds together, the less capable it is of surviving hard times and catastrophe.

Our society must, if it is to remain prosperous and survive, return to the teaching of moral virtues and the belief that man is not just his own man-- he is also a member of a family and a community, at the very least, and has obligations to both.
I will agree that society ought to return to teaching moral virtues - as long as no one has a monopoly on deciding what those virtues are.

The question is, how can we do that?

No, but the law does provide reinforcement-- both positive and negative-- for desirable behaviors, and it is necessary for a functional society to have common moral values. The law may have no authority when it comes to settling differences of moral opinion, but it is a terrific tool for shaping peoples' beliefs.
I've expressed this idea several times - that the law is very influential creating/changing/shaping civic morality.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Excellent point. The diversity of human culture ought to permit diversity of morality.

Does not the fact that there are multiple governments-- and those governments are constantly changing-- permit this adequately enough?

I will agree that society ought to return to teaching moral virtues - as long as no one has a monopoly on deciding what those virtues are.

I'm not sure that is even possible. Moral virtues in contradiction to the law cannot be tolerated, as they create disorder and lead eventually to insurrection-- but they are the inevitable consequence to having multiple, independent sources of moral teaching. I'm not even sure it is possible to have an equilibrium between the two extremes, as the reaction to sliding one way or the other is always an overreaction.

The only way to create a stable society is for the agencies of society-- whether they be Church, State, or other-- to share the same moral vision and to promote that vision amongst the people.

[Michael]

Does not the fact that there are multiple governments-- and those governments are constantly changing-- permit this adequately enough?
Yes, this does appear to be functionally sufficient.

I will agree that society ought to return to teaching moral virtues - as long as no one has a monopoly on deciding what those virtues are.
I'm not sure that is even possible. Moral virtues in contradiction to the law cannot be tolerated, as they create disorder and lead eventually to insurrection-- but they are the inevitable consequence to having multiple, independent sources of moral teaching. I'm not even sure it is possible to have an equilibrium between the two extremes, as the reaction to sliding one way or the other is always an overreaction.
"Moral virtues in contradiction to the law cannot be tolerated..." :eek:

I object to this most vehemently. I'm a classical liberal of the old school - and a pragmatic one at that. I believe that for 'best practice' to be adopted in any given respect, that policy requires that a variety of practices be available to learn from - given the ever-changing circumstances of our material and social environment. Variety is a natural human asset that ought to be celebrated for its intrinsic value as well as utilized for common social benefit.

The only way to create a stable society is for the agencies of society-- whether they be Church, State, or other-- to share the same moral vision and to promote that vision amongst the people.
This is a vexing argument (and a rather Hobbesian one). I'm not going to argue against that point specifically (though I may).

I shall only say that if 'unity' of moral vision from the institutions of state is necessary for a stable civil society, this does not logically preclude the existence or utility of other private moralities for other purposes.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I believe that for 'best practice' to be adopted in any given respect, that policy requires that a variety of practices be available to learn from - given the ever-changing circumstances of our material and social environment.

Ah, but there is no such "best practice" as concerns morality. Any criteria such a judgment might be based upon would be just as arbitrary as the practices that they purport to judge. The only way to judge the morality of a society is in reference to its own, or another entity's, values and goals.

A common moral vision still leaves room for experimentation and variety. Where society falls apart is not in people pursuing different means to the same moral ends, it is when the people drift apart and begin to pursue separate and contradictory ends.

I shall only say that if 'unity' of moral vision from the institutions of state is necessary for a stable civil society, this does not logically preclude the existence or utility of other private moralities for other purposes.

I didn't restrict my argument to only the institutions of state. The State itself is nothing more than an extension of the society, a subset of the institutions of the society that it belongs to. Morality is shaped by all of the institutions of the society-- or, at least, all of the institutions that the individual participates in.

And I will agree with you that a person can hold private moral values without contradicting-- and endangering-- the unity of the whole. Indeed, this would be the beginning of any effort to change the moral values of society; a person has to realize that their interests are not identical to the consensus before they have the ability, or the reason, to sit down at the table and attempt to shift that consensus in their favor.

But that is a dangerous course of action, and the person who is trying to bend public morals to their own vision has to be much more mindful of their conduct than the deviant who only ignores the public moral worldview.

[SMadsen]

I will agree that society ought to return to teaching moral virtues - as long as no one has a monopoly on deciding what those virtues are.

The question is, how can we do that?
Well, I believe there are a limited number of ways to teach moral virtues. In fact, I can only make sense of three of them:
1. by arguing the case of virtues,
2. by having the authority and power needed to make others submit to rote learning, or,
3. by outsourcing the authority and power mentioned in 2.

No. 1 is limited to the issues that can actually be argued. For example, it's usually harder to argue the good of the color red than to argue the commitment of paying taxes (yes yes, it depends on POV :D ). This is the method used in schools where I come from and is why morality is visibly relative since it doesn't exclude opposing views as long as they, too, can be argued.

No. 2 is what always seems to put the good in "the good ole days".

No. 3 is of course well known and is what must be severed from the bunch if the other methods must maintain their integrity. Besides, it works best on its own.

[Michael]

Ah, but there is no such "best practice" as concerns morality. Any criteria such a judgment might be based upon would be just as arbitrary as the practices that they purport to judge. The only way to judge the morality of a society is in reference to its own, or another entity's, values and goals.

A common moral vision still leaves room for experimentation and variety. Where society falls apart is not in people pursuing different means to the same moral ends, it is when the people drift apart and begin to pursue separate and contradictory ends.
I think the 'moral' point about 'gay equality' is a good example here.

That's a 'new' morality. Traditionally, most moral systems held that homosexuality was 'evil'. The new 'morality' states that is not evil and deserves equal rights. This is actively in process of change of majority status from the 'older' to the 'newer' morality.

There is no 'purpose' driven agenda here. It just happened - though perhaps an awareness that the planet is overpopulated and that we don't have any individual necessity to breed in order to maintain the species might have had something to do with it. I'm more inclined to say that the 'gay equality' is a successful meme at this time due to the support it gains from the meta-environmental factor of planetary overpopulation.

I didn't restrict my argument to only the institutions of state. The State itself is nothing more than an extension of the society, a subset of the institutions of the society that it belongs to. Morality is shaped by all of the institutions of the society-- or, at least, all of the institutions that the individual participates in.
Uniformity of the moral message serves only the interest of an authoritarian state.

I hold that liberty is a fundamental human aspiration that is incompatible with such a uniformity of morality as a goal.

And I will agree with you that a person can hold private moral values without contradicting-- and endangering-- the unity of the whole. Indeed, this would be the beginning of any effort to change the moral values of society; a person has to realize that their interests are not identical to the consensus before they have the ability, or the reason, to sit down at the table and attempt to shift that consensus in their favor.
I consider the term "unity" to be much like "perfection" or "objectivity". It is a theoretical construct that we aspire to, or work towards, but can never actually achieve in reality.

Systems designed to actually achieve or demonstrate unity, perfection or objectivity generally just produce results that are ephemeral, delusional or arbitrarily authoritarian. Where human beings are concerned, actual unity, perfection or pure objectivity are just not possible.

But that is a dangerous course of action, and the person who is trying to bend public morals to their own vision has to be much more mindful of their conduct than the deviant who only ignores the public moral worldview.
But both persons are parts of the human group. Civil society exists in the dynamic that deals with both of them. A liberal-democratic and pluralist society is, by definition, best able to reconcile such diverse human types.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I think the 'moral' point about 'gay equality' is a good example here.

That's a 'new' morality. Traditionally, most moral systems held that homosexuality was 'evil'. The new 'morality' states that is not evil and deserves equal rights. This is actively in process of change of majority status from the 'older' to the 'newer' morality.

There is no 'purpose' driven agenda here. It just happened...

As I make my argument here, remember that I support gay rights and every pro-homosexual policy issue except for hate crimes legislation. (Which I also oppose for other groups.)

I would argue that this is not a spontaneous change, but the product of moral decay resulting from societal alienation and excessive atomism. I support gay marriage-- for several reasons-- but I find that the most common arguments in favor of it are misguided and vaguely terrifying. Every time that I hear marriage referred to as a "right", or someone declare that "the State has no business deciding who can get married", I fear for the future of a society that has such little regard for its traditions or its own vital institutions. It's the same dangerous reasoning that drives people to have children without getting married, or to leave their marriages as casually as they leave their jobs.

I'm more inclined to say that the 'gay equality' is a successful meme at this time due to the support it gains from the meta-environmental factor of planetary overpopulation.

Pfeh. There is no planetary overpopulation. The only reason for overcrowding is that people have chased jobs into metropolitan areas; I live in a small, sprawled out city, and the average population density here is still greater than that of the Earth as a whole.

To put it another way, the whole population of the Earth could be comfortably housed within the State of Texas, and comfortably fed by the State of California. (Or vice versa.) The only reason that people are overcrowded and starving is the same economic system that you defend in the poverty thread we've highjacked; reducing the population suddenly, or even reducing the rate of population growth, would do nothing except to exacerbate the problems of poverty and starvation.

Uniformity of the moral message serves only the interest of an authoritarian state.

I hold that liberty is a fundamental human aspiration that is incompatible with such a uniformity of morality as a goal.

Uniformity of the moral message only benefits the State that operates in alignment with the morality of the people, and it benefits the people themselves regardless of the State. It is a fundamental human need that must exist before true liberty can arise; no man can be free living in a society whose morals disagree with his.

I consider the term "unity" to be much like "perfection" or "objectivity". It is a theoretical construct that we aspire to, or work towards, but can never actually achieve in reality.

The same could be argued of liberty, equality, and fraternity, given that we've spent more than two centuries in pursuit of these things in the West and the quest appears to be neverending.

I do not believe in any such notion as perfection, but the pursuit of liberty and equality is tearing Western civilization apart; unity and order are needed, either now to attempt to hold civilization together, or after the work of liberalism is completed and society has fragmented itself into a million pieces.

But both persons are parts of the human group. Civil society exists in the dynamic that deals with both of them. A liberal-democratic and pluralist society is, by definition, best able to reconcile such diverse human types.

By definition, perhaps. In practice, it does nothing to reconcile them at all, instead allowing them to fragment and form exclusive and isolationist subcultures and minimize their exposure to one another until such time as they have little or nothing culturally and morally in common.

[Michael]

As I make my argument here, remember that I support gay rights and every pro-homosexual policy issue except for hate crimes legislation. (Which I also oppose for other groups.)

I would argue that this is not a spontaneous change, but the product of moral decay resulting from societal alienation and excessive atomism. I support gay marriage-- for several reasons-- but I find that the most common arguments in favor of it are misguided and vaguely terrifying. Every time that I hear marriage referred to as a "right", or someone declare that "the State has no business deciding who can get married", I fear for the future of a society that has such little regard for its traditions or its own vital institutions. It's the same dangerous reasoning that drives people to have children without getting married, or to leave their marriages as casually as they leave their jobs.
Two points here:

1) I only raised the issue of gay rights, not for any intrinsic merit, but simply as an example of 'changing group morality'. Clearly group morality can and does change over time. Laws can and do change over time to reflect this.

2) The 'right' of marriage is nothing more than the 'defacto right' to have one's own marriage acknowledged and recognized by the institutions of state and society.

As for marriage itself, I don't consider it a vital institution. It is no more important than any other social institution, and the negative externalities that are regularly produced by it make this institution one of questionable legal value for the community. Marriage serves a positive interest for the individual alone - neither the social community and the state derive substantial benefit from the institution.

Indeed, if one considers the essential political character of marriage, it is anti-social and anti-state. It is a separation away from the social body and the state.

Pfeh. There is no planetary overpopulation. The only reason for overcrowding is that people have chased jobs into metropolitan areas; I live in a small, sprawled out city, and the average population density here is still greater than that of the Earth as a whole.

To put it another way, the whole population of the Earth could be comfortably housed within the State of Texas, and comfortably fed by the State of California. (Or vice versa.) The only reason that people are overcrowded and starving is the same economic system that you defend in the poverty thread we've highjacked; reducing the population suddenly, or even reducing the rate of population growth, would do nothing except to exacerbate the problems of poverty and starvation.
Any reply here would constitute an even greater topic digression than we are already presently engaged in! :D

Uniformity of the moral message only benefits the State that operates in alignment with the morality of the people, and it benefits the people themselves regardless of the State. It is a fundamental human need that must exist before true liberty can arise; no man can be free living in a society whose morals disagree with his.
I strongly disagree. I see the state has having a moral interest in rulership that is always at odds with the moral interests of any given individual.

The same could be argued of liberty, equality, and fraternity, given that we've spent more than two centuries in pursuit of these things in the West and the quest appears to be neverending.

I do not believe in any such notion as perfection, but the pursuit of liberty and equality is tearing Western civilization apart; unity and order are needed, either now to attempt to hold civilization together, or after the work of liberalism is completed and society has fragmented itself into a million pieces.

I'm okay with this.

I think liberty, equality and fraternity are just like 'perfection' and 'objectivity' or 'true knowledge' - they are things that one strives for, but can never actually expect to achieve in reality.

As they say, life is not about the end-state (which is death) but all about the journey of getting there.

And I don't believe that perfect harmony of human society is possible or desirable. Humans are animals - we thrive on our environmental stimulus. True peace is the peace of a graveyard.

By definition, perhaps. In practice, it does nothing to reconcile them at all, instead allowing them to fragment and form exclusive and isolationist subcultures and minimize their exposure to one another until such time as they have little or nothing culturally and morally in common.
Yes, that's a reasonable supposition.

And I think that is better than fostering a war between them and the state - where the citizenry becomes the battleground - as is the practice of all authoritarian type governments. In this example, liberty permits the people to choose peace. With authority, peace is not a viable option.