[lit-ideas] Re: Ye Olde Dialectic
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 14:30:03 -0400
Eric Yost wrote:
"The question nagging at me is "How can we know that until we demand that
government try to do so?" Ever since the Dark Ages, churches have filled gaps
in social responsibility, but we don't really know what governments can or
cannot do until they try."
What a peculiar way of thinking about government. Imagine asking that question
before the 19th century. It seems that in the 20th century there was the
transition from the nation-state, with its notion of leaders and the people, to
the bureaucratic state, identified with its functionaries. That is, many
people think of government as that which is there to do things for people.
Now, in a sense, this is true. Government does the things smaller civil groups
can't do. But from where do we get the idea that government is supposed to do
all things excepting the things it can be shown to not be able to do? Why
think that government might have a great store of abilities not yet discovered?
Does it make sense to say that we don't really know what managers can or
cannot do until they try? Rather, don't we talk about managers as having
particular roles and when they fulfill those roles, they are doing a good job?
Government, and its bureaucracy, has a specific role and when it
fulfils this role, it is doing what it is supposed to do. If the citizenry
add or subtract from that role, then what government is supposed to do,
changes. What is not the case is government having an a priori determined role.
I had written:
"It is the strength of being religious that allows one to extend the notion of
the neighbour to include all human beings."
to which Eric replied:
"But wouldn't a well-developed sense of civic virtue do the same on the local
level? 'This raving alcoholic tramp is my fellow citizen' should work as well
as 'this raving alcoholic tramp is also a child of God.' The difference seems
to be scope--citizens versus all humans."
At the local level, yes. At this level, the notion of 'fellow citizen' might
be sufficient. The problem comes when the Other isn't a fellow citizen. I am
a Canadian and virtually all the people suffering from the effects of Katrina
are not. At this point, civic virtue is no longer applicable. Is there
another kind of virtue that would provide a robust enough account of our
concern for the Other, when that Other is not a fellow citizen? One candidate
is humanism, but I have found this to be remarkably thin for the kind of work
it is supposed to do. Given the religion bashing so popular on this list, I
thought it appropriate to suggest that the religious is an obvious candidate.
In the case of Christianity, not only is love of the neighbour, where the
neighbour might be any other human being, a duty, it is a virtue. This
combination of duty and virtue is, to my mind, superior to the alternatives.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
