COMMUNITARIANISM AND VIRTUE-BASED ETHICS

By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D.

Historically speaking, liberalism was a product of the Enlightenment. Modern communitarianism was primarily an outgrowth of the Reformation. If liberalism sought to emancipate individuals, communitarianism sought to emancipate groups or communities. Recall from your history classes that prior to the Reformation the Catholic church monopolized religious life throughout Europe. Any religious groups and/or individuals that disagreed with church authorities were subjected to coercive measures and forced into conformity. Remember Galileo? The Reformation broke the monopoly held by the Catholic church and opened the door for the creation of hundreds of protestant religious groups beginning with Lutheranism. Hence, governmental toleration for religious groups became more common. 

In contrast to the atomic individualism characteristic of both the libertarian and welfare liberal strands of Western liberalism, communitarians emphasize our social or communal nature. Communitarians, therefore argue that natural human beings are not really atomic individuals at all, but rather members of croups and/or communities. Hence, individuals are really embedded in communities; and therefore our actual wants and desires are conditioned by our social interaction within a community. When my boys were younger they both wanted "Starter Jackets." Why? It’s because most of their friends at school had them. In short, their taste in clothing and music was (and still is) largely dictated by the community of students at school, which is, in turn manipulated by corporate advertising. Strictly speaking, then, their desire to own a Starter Jacket or listen to the music of Green Day, are not really matters of free choice. Communitarian-minded Catholic schools seek to minimize the communal effect of advertising on the minds of students by requiring uniforms. They don't see it as violating the personal liberty of students, since student wants are not really expressions of atomic individuality, but rather blind conformity to corporate advertising. 

Communitarians regard liberalism's commitment to unembeded individualism, conceived independent from its social context, as a convenient myth at best. Are most of your individual wants a matter of personal choice or are they the product of manipulative advertising? Association and relationship with others, communitarians argue, is natural, a part of the good life, a virtue, and can be conceived of as an "end in itself." Moreover, they believe that it is possible to prescribe a single concept of the good life, that all the individuals in a given community ought to pursue. For example, here in Cincinnati, pornography is regarded as incompatible with community standards and therefore discouraged by zoning laws. But high school football is considered to be very important, especially in Catholic schools

Obviously, the problem here is deciding who sets these community standards? Liberal critics of communitarianism argue that community standards are ultimately set by a few powerful individuals, who may or may not set those standards objectively. Hence, communitarians often advocate legal moralism as a liberty-limiting principle. Politically, communitarianism tends toward aristocracy (or theocracy) rather than democracy. Here in Cincinnati, communitarian values are encouraged via the local newspapers and talk radio stations. Although some argue that the local media merely reflects community values, liberals say that the newspapers are merely inflicting their own personal perception of the good life on the rest of us. 

Defenders of communitarianism say that tradition, more than anything else, frames the good life for a community. Therefore, some social practices become imbedded in the community over a long period of time. Liberals, however, say that tradition is often little more than a reflection of the effectiveness of a community's coercive measures, and are and not necessarily indicative of objective "Goodness." Communitarians regard the satisfaction of at least some collective wants and desires as "positive rights;" but these rights are not grounded in a theory of justice, but rather in the primary virtues of love, care, and friendship. Of course, in reality not all communitarian regimes exemplify these values.

There are two main rifts within communitarian scholarship. The first is over scale (or size) of the ideal community, the second is over the role of free will and democratic political institutions. The issue of scale recognizes that there are differing views concerning the possibility of creating large-scale, or even global, political structures that actually promote wholesome communities. Large-scale communitarians , like Karl Marx, believe that it is possible to form large political units that promote human well being. e.g. Communist China or the old Soviet Union. On the other side there are small-scale communitarians find human fulfillment only in small, intimate, inter-personal relationships as found in families, religious organizations, and local communities.  They tend to resist the formation of large communities, and therefore seek to reduce the power of federal government over states and local communities.

Interestingly, libertarians and small-scale communitarians, therefore, share a deep suspicion of increased power of the central state and view the proliferation of large-scale bureaucratic institutions as a potential threat to the existence of these smaller, more intimate communities that truly define human fulfillment and individuality. Critics, of small-scale communitarianism, including some welfare liberals and socialists, point out that even small groups, especially the traditional patriarchal nuclear family, can be incompatible with human fulfillment. Therefore, many individuals seek refuge from the tyranny of small communities in larger-scale political entities that offer protection. Other critics of small-scale communitarianism argue that the proliferation of independent, autonomous, self-defining communities invariably leads to large-scale relativism between those communities and the denial of any universal, inter-communal concept of the good. Hence, any collection of small-scale communities will end up competing with each other for scarce resources and eventually end up at war. The American Civil War was a good example of how large-scale federalists conflicted with small scale communitarians who advocated states rights. 

Another point of philosophical contention between communitarians is a disagreement over the use of coercive measures. Of course, most communities are formed around common belief systems steeped in tradition. Indeed all communitarians embrace these community values over individual values. However, if individualism and free will are totally rejected as moral values, then the political question arises as to what kinds of techniques can a community employ in its attempts to insure conformity to their collective beliefs. For example, some religious groups employ well-known psychological techniques to produce conformity; known as "brain-washing" or "indoctrination." Other religious groups do not employ such coercive methods but merely rely on education. However, critics point out that as a community grows in population and geographical expanse, the more difficult it becomes to maintain voluntariness. Indeed communitarian regimes may impinge on voluntariness in at least four ways.

First, many such communities use highly sophisticated techniques of indoctrination that make defection to another community psychologically difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, liberal regimes tend to regulate "brainwashing" as practiced by its communitarian sub-communities. Of course, the line between brainwashing and legitimate education will always be murky. Second, some particular communitarian regimes occupy geographical space. (e.g. an Italian-American neighborhood). The larger the area consumed, the more difficult it may become for discontents to leave that community because of transportation and/or moving costs. Hence, large public schools and public school districts tend to limit institutional options for those students that cannot afford to move to another district. Third, as common interests are identified (e.g. common defense needs) any confederation of communitarian societies will probably generate movement toward federalism. In the United States, this movement has fostered a longstanding debate over the nature and extent of federalism vs. states rights. Alexander Hamilton, among others realized that there would always be non-liberal forces at work to install one communitarian regime. The goal of liberalism is to resist this. Fourth, a confederation of voluntary communities would invariably include voluntary intolerant communities such as the Neo-Nazis. Depending on how this intolerance is exercised in relationships with other voluntary communities, these groups may precipitate eminity between opposing groups and perhaps even civil war. e.g. present day Bosnia. However, if the expression of intolerance is restricted to the area of speech, then a liberal society would be obligated to respect it. Of course, this would require a rock solid distinction between speech and acts, which modern liberalism has been unable to sustain. Recall that liberalism, with its respect for free will and individualism, eschews all coercive measures and all forms of association are purely voluntary. Communitarians, however, are divided. Some are social determinists and deny free will altogether and therefore they may not embrace democratic principles. Politically, they tend to favor theocracy or aristocracy. However, some communitarians accept at at least a sliver of free will and individualism. Therefore, they limit the coercive power of government and defend democratic political principles.

Issue to Think About

Do you think human beings are "atomic individuals" or are they "imbedded in communities?" How do each of these views imply different political orientations?

COMMUNITARIAN VIRTUE ETHICS

Many communitarians favor a republican form of government, modeled after the Greek city-states where the early communitarian philosophers like Plato and Aristotle lived. Republicanism requires the cultivation of a common set of character traits among its citizens. So in contrast to liberal democracies where "the right precedes the good," in a republic, "the good precedes the right." Republican communitarians, therefore, seek to promote standards of excellence consistent with the good of the whole community. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics was probably the first systematic exposition of a secular virtue-based ethical system. Here’s a few tidbits.  

First of all, it is important to note that Aristotle is a hedonist and therefore, he thought that the end or goal of all deliberate human action is pleasure, or happiness. Not pleasure in the immediate present but pleasure over the course of one's entire lifetime.  A good person experiences pleasure at the right time, place, and degree. Aristotle also distinguished between higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Lower pleasures (eating) are those pleasures that animals are capable of enjoying, while higher pleasures (reading philosophy) are pleasures that can only be appreciated by rational human beings. Rationality, unfortunately, is not distributed equally among human beings, therefore, some human beings are only capable of indulging in the lower pleasures, while others (usually the upper classes) can experience the higher pleasures. 

In the broadest sense, virtue means excellence. Hence, anything subject to degrees (good, better, and best etc.) has virtue. Although we can talk about the virtue of a specific kind of computer over others, the Greeks most often referred to virtue as excellence of human character and behavior. Aristotle differentiated between two spheres of human activity that are governed by virtue: the intellectual sphere and the social or political sphere. Intellectual virtues reflect excellence of thought, while moral virtues reflect excellence of action. Hence, Aristotle envisioned two alternative paths to human excellence and consummate happiness: the intellectual life of the philosopher and the social life of the politician. 

Aristotle believed moral virtue consists in choosing the mean between the extremes of excess and deficiency. The vice of excess consists in choosing too much of a good thing and the vice of deficiency consists of not enough. Excellence is found midway between the two.

sphere of action or feeling	vice of deficiency	mean or virtue	vice of excess
fear, confidence	cowardice	courage	foolhardiness
pleasure and pain	insensibility	temperance	self-indulgence
getting and spending (minor)	tight wad	liberality	spendthrift or prodigality
getting and spending (major)	undue humility	pride or proper ambition	undue  vanity
anger	unirascibility	patience or good temper	hotheadedness
self-expression	understatement	truthfulness	boastfulness
conversation	boorishness	wittiness	buffoonery
social conduct	cantankerous	friendliness	obsequiousness
shame	shamelessness	modesty	shyness
indignation	spitefulness	rightious indignation	envy

Hence, moral virtue, according to Aristotle, is a character trait; a disposition of an individual to act in a certain way, under certain circumstances. These habits or dispositions are cultivated via social and political institutions, especially institutions of education. The idea is to encourage desirable habitual behaviors (virtuous) behavior and discourage undesirable (vicious) behaviors. For example, the virtue of courage leads to good behavior and cowardice or foolhardiness leads to bad. The standard of the virtue of courage varies between individuals and in different kinds of situations involving fear. For example, under conditions of war, the standard of courage would be different for soldiers and civilians. It would be irrational to expect soldiers and civilians to act the same way under battle conditions. There are dangerous situations in war where certain responses are indicative of a foolhardy character. Courageous soldiers retreat in those situations. There are also situations where cowardly soldiers retreat, without just cause.  

Moral education must begin at an early age and consists in developing the habit of choosing the mean between the extremes. Moral character is, therefore, cultivated in children by teaching them to emulate the behavior of virtuous adults. A child becomes virtuous when he/she habitually does the right thing and experiences pleasure upon doing it. Although knowing what the right thing to do is a necessary condition for virtue, it is not sufficient. You must also do the right thing. Hence, Aristotle made a distinction between virtue and mere continence. An incontinent person knows the right thing to do, but is unable to do it because he/she is driven more by base feelings than reason. A continent person knows the right thing to do and even succeeds in doing it, but he/she does not feel pleasure upon doing it. In contrast, a virtuous person is not driven by base feelings and therefore feels good upon doing the right thing. A adult habitually prone toward excess or deficiency has a vicious character and will always act that way. Rehabilitation is for adults harboring vicious personalities. That's why both Plato and Aristotle were advocates of rigorous childhood moral education. 

While the Greeks favored Aristocracy as a form of government, some recent communitarians advocate cultivating character traits that are essential for participation in democratic self-government. For example, they argue that democracies must cultivate civic virtues such as friendship and caring in children in order to prepare them to cooperate in a communal setting. When children are raised in a culture based on self-interest, meaningful communal relationships become difficult to sustain.

Issue to Think About

Do you use the word "virtue" in your everyday moral discussions? What are the Christian virtues? Should the government attempt to shape the character of its citizens?