Communitarianism.docx

Communitarianism Aristotle: Individuals and community (e.g. the city-state) live and thrive in symbiosis: Political deliberation is the best arena where virtuous persons can exercise, train, and hone their virtue (arete). the polis is the entity which most needs the contribution of virtuous persons,...

Communitarianism Aristotle: Individuals and community (e.g. the city-state) live and thrive in symbiosis: Political deliberation is the best arena where virtuous persons can exercise, train, and hone their virtue (arete). the polis is the entity which most needs the contribution of virtuous persons, and most specifically, their competence at deliberation, problem-solving and decision-making in order to thrive. Hence, both individuals and communities fulfil their ultimate end in relationship with each other. Aristotle’s compelling view forms an important centre around which the communitarian view in ethics and political theory develops. Individuals need the community to thrive  Communitarianism Rawls Critique: The close relation between individual and communities is key to Sandel’s and other communitarians’ criticisms of Rawls and Kant: they argue that Rawls’ theory of justice presupposes the existence of generic individuals, and thus fails to account for the complex set of social relations that all individuals in the modern world are a part of Because individual identity is partly constructed by culture and social relations, there is no coherent way of formulating individual rights or interests in abstraction from social contexts. Attempting to find a theory of justice on principles decided behind Rawls’ veil of ignorance will not work, because individuals cannot exist in such an abstracted state Behind the veil of ignorance, we forget our past, our habits, our traditions  what o binds us to a particular community how can an individual like this decide on what  is right and what is wrong?! Generic individuals do not exist  I am for example Austrian with all my past, my habits, my culture etc. Moral and political judgment will depend on the language of reasons and the interpretive framework (storytelling) within which agents view their world, hence the political enterprise cannot abstract from the interpretive dimensions of human beliefs, practices, and institutions o Story: Every existence is a journey where each of us their own protagonist and is unique to us, the place where we try and find meaning to our existence, accepting pieces and values and experiences from many different places and communities we have and do belong to  we have agency to judge and make choices as ethical beings and pick and choose what values we stand for and what values to oppose Find balance between: (1) Abstract universality that does not take into account any particular circumstance and (2) relativistic idea: each community determines their own idea of what is right and what is wrong Liberal (Rawlsian) theories of obligations fail to account for moral ties that we feel we have (because we share a certain identity) but which we have not chosen and which do not derive from a social contract. As people we feel like we have more duty to some people than others; ex parents These obligations are accounted for by a theory of obligations based on a narrative (storytelling-based) account of moral agency. This narrative account allows to reconcile the freedom of individuals and their moral ties discussed above. Go beyond pure liberalism by Rawls Defence: by Simon Caney “Rawls is committed on normative grounds to refuse the notion of a self-unencumbered by communal commitment. The reason why such information should be excluded is precisely because cultural attachments are so important to people. the parties know that they have (or may have) certain interests and cultural ends which they cannot put in jeopardy. It is because they are so important that Rawls wants to ensure that they will be protected, and this is one of the reasons why knowledge of one’s cultural commitment is excluded. That such knowledge is hidden behind a veil of ignorance reflects Rawls’ appreciation of how strongly people are attached to their ends.  protect the communities so that no other community can threaten another by applying veil of ignorance when setting social contract; a safe space to be who you are; protect the specificities of people and communities in virtue of them  all are equal Hence, communitarian’s descriptive claims are explicitly recognized by Rawls, and his normative theory is designed to protect cultural attachments. Normative VS Descriptive Ethics Normative ethics: the study of how people ought to behave. It aims at identifying the best rules for behaviour.  is a statement about what should be the norm, what you should do, how you should behave (independently of whether this norm is actually implemented in practice): “Killing is wrong” or Categorical Imperative Bentham: “It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to define what we shall do.”; “It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is (should) the measure of right and wrong.” Descriptive ethics: the study of how people do behave, and how they think they should behave. It is grounded in observation —looking at people as they are. Don’t suggest behaviour, action etc.  a statement that describes what is the case: “It is raining” Bentham: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” Criticism of Communitarianism Sandel focuses his attention on the fact that belonging to a community encumbers individuals with extra moral duties and responsibilities (ex. caring for parents). But narrative is a tool, and as such it can be used for the opposite purpose. An individual might also decide that they refuse their communities and detach themselves and exclude them from their moral obligations. One can do some instrumental thinking and fit one’s narrative to one’s purpose. The communitarian account provides no principle to avoid the ensuing moral relativism.  if you don’t feel like doing something, you can just say ‘that is not important to me’  Where does one put the boundaries of one’s community? People belong to more than one community: what happens then? Who wrote the rules in place in a certain community? o Determines to whom do you have moral duties; communities could have clashing interests – how do you decide what is more important?; do rule of a community serve political interests of certain members?