Ethics in a pluralist society

[Sen McGlinn]

Pluralism is here to stay: the alternatives required to eliminate it are too terrible to consider. That means that we have to think again about how the whole (‘society’) and its parts fit together, how the state relates to religious, altruistic and ethnic communities, and where the ethics come from. If a society has one culture, as was once the case, that culture nurtures the virtues which the state needs. But no society now or in the future can have one culture, one set of common values, yet the state still needs most of its citizens to be law-abiding most of the time, it needs virtuous citizens. So how can we have virtuous citizens without common values?
More of this on the Daily Kos,

Ethics in a plural society

Pluralism is here to stay: the alternatives required to eliminate it are too terrible to consider. That means that we have to think again about how the whole (‘society’) and its parts fit together, how the state relates to religious, altruistic and...

www.dailykos.com

a discussion there would be nice.

Background
Daily Kos has a group called "Street Prophets." I would like to get some Bahai thinking on social philosophy under discussion there.


I have a quote for that:
"Efforts to participate in the discourses of society constitute a third area of action in which the friends are engaged. Such participation can occur at all levels of society, from the local to the international, through various types of interactions -- from informal discussions on Internet forums and attendance at seminars, to the dissemination of statements and contact with government officials. What is important is for Bahá'ís to be present in the many social spaces in which thinking and policies evolve on any one of a number of issues.." (On behalf of the UHJ, to the NSA of Australia, Jan 4 2009)

 

[Ahanu]

Pluralism is here to stay: the alternatives required to eliminate it are too terrible to consider. That means that we have to think again about how the whole (‘society’) and its parts fit together, how the state relates to religious, altruistic and ethnic communities, and where the ethics come from. If a society has one culture, as was once the case, that culture nurtures the virtues which the state needs. But no society now or in the future can have one culture, one set of common values, yet the state still needs most of its citizens to be law-abiding most of the time, it needs virtuous citizens. So how can we have virtuous citizens without common values?
More of this on the Daily Kos,

Ethics in a plural society

Pluralism is here to stay: the alternatives required to eliminate it are too terrible to consider. That means that we have to think again about how the whole (‘society’) and its parts fit together, how the state relates to religious, altruistic and...

www.dailykos.com

a discussion there would be nice.

Background
Daily Kos has a group called "Street Prophets." I would like to get some Bahai thinking on social philosophy under discussion there.


I have a quote for that:
"Efforts to participate in the discourses of society constitute a third area of action in which the friends are engaged. Such participation can occur at all levels of society, from the local to the international, through various types of interactions -- from informal discussions on Internet forums and attendance at seminars, to the dissemination of statements and contact with government officials. What is important is for Bahá'ís to be present in the many social spaces in which thinking and policies evolve on any one of a number of issues.." (On behalf of the UHJ, to the NSA of Australia, Jan 4 2009)

Who decides who is a virtuous citizen and by what criteria?

Also, should common values be Western values like pluralism as a positive good for society?

How does the lemon test filter out hostile groups that don't want to fall in line? How do we handle such communities?

 

[wil]

Seems to me your personal ethics and virtues will always supercede the edicts from on high at some point. There may be a cost to it if you break the norm, at a minimum people talk or roll their eyes, violate the "rule" far enough the law of the land will take over.

That works both ways...whether your violation is less or more virtuos than the standard.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Who decides who is a virtuous citizen and by what criteria?

Also, should common values be Western values like pluralism as a positive good for society?

How does the lemon test filter out hostile groups that don't want to fall in line? How do we handle such communities?

A virtuous citizen is a citizen who has a virtue, and virtues -- unlike values -- are universally agreed. Cowardice is not a virtue, in any world. Injustice is not something to strive for, in any religion or philosophy. Wisdom is everywhere valued. And so forth.

I do not believe that common values are necessary or possible. Would unicorns be a positive good? Meh. Horns and hooves health and safety hazards versus a nice white mane, it's a toss-up.

The "lemon test" regarding the US first amendment (non-establishment) has three criteria for a law:
- The law must have a secular (non-religious) purpose.
- The primary or principal effect of the law must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
- The law must not foster an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
In my article on Daily Kos (comments there are still open) said, that the state (each particular state) "needs to work with the ethnic, ethical, and religious communities ... not because one ethnicity is the leitcultuur and must be protected, or one religion is favoured for historical reasons, but for transparent and equally applied “reasons of state.” Something like the “lemon test” must be formulated for government partnerships with the communities in civic society."

"Hostile groups" -- hostile to the state - are not likely to be seeking state partnerships to achieve their social ends. Groups hostile to one another do not need to form the same state-subsidized school, or hospital. The equivalent of a lemon test would be to check that there are reasons of state -- including the desirability of fostering the religious, ethical and ethnic communities -- for the partnership. "We work with the Catholics because they uphold the Trinity" is not an argument.

 

[Ahanu]

A virtuous citizen is a citizen who has a virtue, and virtues -- unlike values -- are universally agreed. Cowardice is not a virtue, in any world. Injustice is not something to strive for, in any religion or philosophy. Wisdom is everywhere valued. And so forth.

So everybody agrees justice is a virtue at a very abstract level, but there is still a problem at the practical level of implementation. How do we define justice? Is it retributive in nature? Some agree. Some disagree.

A state official applying the Lemon Test can't just walk in a community and be like, "Does this community teach justice?" No, they have to walk in a community and be like, "Does this community teach a version of justice that is compatible with the principles of this pluralistic state?" That is where tensions arise.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

So everybody agrees justice is a virtue at a very abstract level, but there is still a problem at the practical level of implementation. How do we define justice? Is it retributive in nature? Some agree. Some disagree.

A state official applying the Lemon Test can't just walk in a community and be like, "Does this community teach justice?" No, they have to walk in a community and be like, "Does this community teach a version of justice that is compatible with the principles of this pluralistic state?" That is where tensions arise.

"Does this community teach X" is not a question for any government official. That's the whole point of my piece on ethics in a plural society. The questions should be, does this community produce virtuous citizens, and will the state's partnership with this community in this project help it to produce virtuous citizens, or help other aims that the state, for reasons of state, desires?
What the community teaches or believes should never be a criterion for the state. Neither "values" nor "doctrines" are relevant. Only virtues. On that basis, state-community partnerships can be built.
Of course the religious, ethnic and altruistic communities will have their own criteria for whether a particular partnership is desirable for them.

 

[wil]

Seems to me when you're talking definitions.You have as much a problem with virtues as you do with justice. Someone think loyalty Is a virtue but loyalty to whom Others would say courage Is a virtue, but would that be courage to protect your nation?Or courage to maintain peace

 

[TheLightWithin]

A state official applying the Lemon Test can't just walk in a community and be like, "Does this community teach justice?" No, they have to walk in a community and be like, "Does this community teach a version of justice that is compatible with the principles of this pluralistic state?" That is where tensions arise.

Does this community teach X" is not a question for any government official. That's the whole point of my piece on ethics in a plural society. The questions should be, does this community produce virtuous citizens, and will the state's partnership with this community in this project help it to produce virtuous citizens, or help other aims that the state, for reasons of state, desires?

Or, for any issues related to the US Constitution and possibly many other constitutions around the world: Does this community in any way shape or form violate the Constitution or does it violate anybody's Constitutional and/or human rights with its actions?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indian Constitution wants same law for all people and the Indian Supreme Court strongly endorses it. So, we are going to bring a "Uniform Civil Code" (UCC) applicable to all people irrespective of religion and gender (male, female or differently inclined).
As for practicing their religion, that is an individual matter and gets all freedom under whatever the law is (for example, conducting prayers on roads is not permissible).

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Or, for any issues related to the US Constitution and possibly many other constitutions around the world: Does this community in any way shape or form violate the Constitution or does it violate anybody's Constitutional and/or human rights with its actions?

That's a first question, but it is for law enforcement. My question is about the basis on which the state can form cooperative partnerships with ethnic, religious and altruistic communities. I think that the criterion cannot be doctrine, or values - it should be based on virtues. In a number of western countries, anti-immigration political currents have tried to promote "common values" as the criterion. These are just a disguised form of doctrines, but the doctrines of the political group in question. The assumption is that common values are a good thing, even necessary. When we break values down into the virtues that compose them, we have common ground (because values are only common to a particular group) and an approach to civil society-state partnerships that is practicable in a pluralist society.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Indian Constitution and Courts reject laws where men, women and differently inclined do not have the same rights. Most problem is with Muslim personal laws (Sharia), about multiple marriages, age at marriage, divorce, custody of children, inheritance and maintenance after divorce. This is going to change.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Indian Constitution wants same law for all people and the Indian Supreme Court strongly endorses it. So, we are going to bring a "Uniform Civil Code" (UCC) applicable to all people irrespective of religion and gender (male, female or differently inclined).
As for practicing their religion, that is an individual matter and gets all freedom under whatever the law is (for example, conducting prayers on roads is not permissible).

This is exactly the right set of principles

 

[TheLightWithin]

Indian Constitution and Courts reject laws where men, women and differently inclined do not have the same rights. Most problem is with Muslim personal laws (Sharia), about multiple marriages, age at marriage, divorce, custody of children, inheritance and maintenance after divorce. This is going to change.

Also, good principles.

 

[Longfellow]

That's a first question, but it is for law enforcement. My question is about the basis on which the state can form cooperative partnerships with ethnic, religious and altruistic communities. I think that the criterion cannot be doctrine, or values - it should be based on virtues. In a number of western countries, anti-immigration political currents have tried to promote "common values" as the criterion. These are just a disguised form of doctrines, but the doctrines of the political group in question. The assumption is that common values are a good thing, even necessary. When we break values down into the virtues that compose them, we have common ground (because values are only common to a particular group) and an approach to civil society-state partnerships that is practicable in a pluralist society.

As you might know, I disagree with you on some vital issues, but this is one part of your thinking that I like.

Values as a disguised form of doctrine, I hadn't thought of it that way, but I can see that.

I don't think that there's perfect agreement about virtues, but there doesn't need to be for your idea to work.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

As you might know, I disagree with you on some vital issues, but this is one part of your thinking that I like.

Values as a disguised form of doctrine, I hadn't thought of it that way, but I can see that.

I don't think that there's perfect agreement about virtues, but there doesn't need to be for your idea to work.

I strongly believe that "the shining spark of truth comes from the clash of differing logical arguments with factual evidence and sources cited." I may not have remembered that quote exactly.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I strongly believe that "the shining spark of truth comes from the clash of differing logical arguments with factual evidence and sources cited." I may not have remembered that quote exactly.

Logical arguments cannot be different. They are illogical except for one.
"Satyam eva jayate, na anritam" (Truth alone wins, not untruth).
You are correct. The clash between truth and falsehood is eternal.