Government...and the promotion of virtue.

Among the examples George cites, there is one anomaly. The first example: promotion of tolerance is more subjective than the others, yet it is the only one that is absolute. Laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of color, ethnicity, etc. are essential to ensure the inalienable right to sit at the front of the bus when there is an empty seat there. This needs nothing from others but their noninterference. It is fitting that the government not only 'promotes' this, but 'requires' it, thus fulfilling the constiutional mandate to protect inalienable rights.

Thrift, reverence, religious observance, etc., however, all fall under promotion of the common welfare and thus are appropriate for government to promote. But here the distinct difference is the government 'promotoes' but does not 'require' these virtues. I think the founders never intended for the government to 'provide' the common welfare, but that it was good and proper that it 'promote' the common welfare.

Too often I think some people fail to draw a distinction between these two principles. Some want the government to provide the common welfare and at the same time be somewhate arbitrary as to what inalienable rights shall be defended.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Thrift, reverence, religious observance, etc., however, all fall under promotion of the common welfare and thus are appropriate for government to promote. But here the distinct difference is the government 'promotoes' but does not 'require' these virtues. I think the founders never intended for the government to 'provide' the common welfare, but that it was good and proper that it 'promote' the common welfare.

One of the basic laws of physics is that for every action there is an equeal and opposite reaction. It applies (not as rigidly) in government as well.

To use one item mentioned already - While government's promotion of "thrift" by giving tax breaks to someone that saves (i.e. 401K, 403B, 529s etc..) doesn't appear to infringe on anyone that same government also continues to spend money (some of it "promoting" those very activities) and as a result, takes in less tax revenue if people follow the promotions.

But since government seldom reduces spending the "equeal and opposite" reaction often leads to a rise in tax rates to balance the governments coffers and on that end you are "required" to comply and creates the infringement.

There are probably very few activities that government can promote that doesn't result in a "required" action on the part of the citizenry somewhere in the chain of events. It ends up becoming a matter of concensus. We collectively decide what items we are or aren't willing cede the government the role of promoting.

0 Replies

The topic here is the "promotion of virtue by the government",not the prohibition of its opposite.

Through various laws, some with criminal penalties, overnment requires that people and organizations refrain from certain prohibited actions relating to discrimination in housing, the workplace, etc. That is not the same thing as promoting the virtue of tolerance in the attitudes and hearts of people. The government promotes tolerance through myriad actions - requiring the posting of diversity materials in the workplace, various other public media and education programs and as well through required educational programs in public schools.

My point is that governments are already very substantially into the business of promoting a wide variety of virtues.

Generally these virtues are those that can be defined thrugh the modern secular body of liberal ideas. Increasingly virtues that are associated with spirituality or religion, or those which are advocated by people and groups perceived to be motivated by spiritual or religious considerations, are seen as beyond the proper domain of government. Despite this vestiges of the old promotion of religion remain - as for example in the tax-exempt status of church property and income, although this too is under increasing attack. Lots of grey area iand ambiguity in this though. I suspect this is part of what Blatham had in mind when he created the thread.

0 Replies

George, the "various laws" to which you refer, and the concommitant "posting of diversity materials in the workplace, various other public media and education programs" cannot not be exclusively attributable to the promotion of virtue. In Brown v. Board of Education and many other rulings since that time, the Supremes have upheld the extension of equity, holding in that case that separate schools will inherently be unequal. Such materials as those to which you refer simply promote understanding of and adherence to the law, the social contract. They are no imposition upon the citizen as the citizen is expected to abide by the law, and the laws in question pertain not to morality or virtue, but simply to equity.

When someone, however, wishes to impose upon citizens, as for example in sodomy laws, this can hardly be called virtuous. Anyone opposing the imposition of such measures does not oppose virtue, they opposed bigotry and prejudice. Not everything which the religiously minded wish to accomplish is reprenhensible--no more are such things necessarily virtuous.

You paint with too broad a brush there, and you are defining virtue in a sufficiently loose manner as to approach meaninglessness.

0 Replies

Setanta,

I did not suggest that the government should or sould not promote any particular virtue. Nor did I even attempt to define virtue. Instead I merely pointerd out that our goverment, like most Western governments, has long been in the business of promoting a wide variety of what are commonly held to be virtues -- tolerance, thrift, charity, cleanliness, and many others.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the several laws applying to concerns that employ more than 50 people. Such organizations must prominently display government furnished materials relating to equaL opportunity and fair employment. Other materials are less specific in relation to laws and instead promote the benefits of 'diversity'. Additional requirements for the training and indoctrination of employees are imposed on companies that do business with the Federal government and many state and city governments. Public education is a major instrument of government indoctrination in favored virtues.

Many people consider sodomy as vice --others consider it a delight, virtuous or not. Whether or not the government should promote or preclude sodomy is not related to the discussion at hand. The government does promote many virtues. That does not mean it should promote all of them. Those who would have the government refrain from condemning (say) sodomy because some consider it a vice, or to promote the virtue of 'no sodomy' are merely guilty of choosing an illogical and inconsistent argument for their position.

0 Replies

You are certainly wrong that whether or not the government should promote or preclude sodomy is very much to the point, after your decidedly partisan shot here . . .

Quote:

Increasingly virtues that are associated with spirituality or religion, or those which are advocated by people and groups perceived to be motivated by spiritual or religious considerations, are seen as beyond the proper domain of government.

I was interested to know what virtues you propose it is that are "seen as beyond the proper domain of government." It would also help if you would specifically identify how it is and by whom it is so seen. If someone opposes the employment of "faith based initiatives," you know, it is entirely possible that virtue is not the issue to them, but rather the exemptions which religions enjoy from the equal employment opportunity provisions of the Civil Rights Act. When citizens protest a case such as that which occured in Ohio, in which a rural and relatively poor school district is made to pay for the cost of flying students from an island in Lake Erie so that the family may exercise "choice" in sending their children to a religiously affiliated school, it is not necessarily true that, and in fact likely untrue that, said citizens either promote vice or simply fail to promote virtue.

You keep slinging "virtue" around, and i suggest you get down to cases.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The topic here is the "promotion of virtue by the government",not the prohibition of its opposite.

While the original topic may have specified government's promotion of virtue, it's impossible to discuss the concept without addressing government's prohibition of vice, which had to be implied in the original topic.

Quote:

My point is that governments are already very substantially into the business of promoting a wide variety of virtues.

Indeed, as they are already very substantially into the business of prohibiting vices. This, of course, doesn't answer the original question. They may be, but should they be?

Quote:

Generally these virtues are those that can be defined thrugh the modern secular body of liberal ideas. Increasingly virtues that are associated with spirituality or religion, or those which are advocated by people and groups perceived to be motivated by spiritual or religious considerations, are seen as beyond the proper domain of government. Despite this vestiges of the old promotion of religion remain - as for example in the tax-exempt status of church property and income, although this too is under increasing attack. Lots of grey area iand ambiguity in this though. I suspect this is part of what Blatham had in mind when he created the thread.

It would be interesting to learn of how you divide the body of virtues promoted by government between those of secular origin and those of religious origin. It's hard to imagine that a bright line can be drawn between the two.

0 Replies

I am not proposing that the government promote more or fewer virtues, nor am, I "slinging virtue around".

I merely pointed out certain observable facts concerning the rather ubiquitous practice of most western governments of promoting a wide variety of what are commonly held to be virtues. I added that even the most secular and liberal elements in the political spectrum are also involved in the promotion of some virtues. I also noted that much of the controversy that exists on the matter has to do with perceptions of the presence or absence of spiritual or religious motivation on the part of this or that advocate. Increasingly such motivations are held by many to invalidate the arguments of those who hold them. (Setanta has demonstrated this for us.)

'Some virtues' does not mean 'all virtues'. My central point is that I don't believe it is possible to find an abstract answer to the central question of this thread, namely how to identify the "right" virtues, deserving of government promotion. In such cases a more pragmatic approach is usually best. Democracy and legislatures provide a reliable means of doing this. Of course constitutional limits must be set and observed, but a good deal of non-prodctive sound and fury has resulted from the attempt to force judicial absolutes on all aspects of certain related questions.

I do not believe that citing a certain behavior as a virtue is a sufficient reason to conclude that government should either promote or require it. Nor do I believe that the government should involve itself in the suppression of all vices. I note that it does some of both and that, though there is some disagreement on details, nearly everyone believes that some virtues should be promoted and some vices suppressed by government. My evident conclusion is that the distinction between virtue and vice is not a useful (or sufficient) guide for the selection of "right" government activity.

The bit about the spiritual/secular friction is an observable fact. I did not express a position on the matter, though it is true that I find the attempt to validate or invalidate the merits of a particular argument, based on the supposed inner motivations of its advocates to be highly illogical.

0 Replies

With regard to your earlier remarks, George, about "requirements" for companies with fifty or more employees: I am the business manager of an electronics firms in security equipment and systems. I have been a business manager or office manager in both government agencies and private business for thirty years-i've worked with companies with as few as a half-dozen employees, and those which employ hundreds. So, in fact, i know what the posting requirements are. The only Federal requirement which i have ever encountered which relates to the number of employees of a company is the exemption granted to businesses with ten or fewer employees to maintain a log of work place safety and health incidents. OSHA does not require companies that small to maintain or report such a journal. All businesses, of whatever size, are required to report any workplace catastrophe, which OSHA defines as an accident or morbid condition which affects three or more employees in a single incident.

Otherwise, the Federal government requires that fair labor standards information be posted-the minimum wage, equal employment opportunity requirements, workplace harassment provisions, workplace safety and health standards. OSHA requires that a single poster be displayed, which is free and can be ordered on-line. Most states have additional fair labor standards posting requirements, and a lot of companies do a good business selling these "combined" posters, and using direct mail "scare" tactics to make their sales. There is no Federal requirement to post anything which encourages diversity. I suspect that you are confusing policy with legal requirements. In preparing bid documents in response to invitations to bid from municipal, county, state and federal agencies, we are never required to do anything more than meet the legal requirements for posting information about or notifying employees of their legal rights, and the legal requirements incumbent upon the employer. I see no promotion of virtue in such requirements. Were a corporate entity desirous of indemnifying themselves from the consequences of an accusation of workplace prejudice or harassment, they could post such things, throw the responsible manager to the sharks, and claim that far from encouraging such actions, they have encouraged workplace harmony and diversity. This would be their choice, and not a requirement of government.

We have a continuing relationship with the Federal Reserve; we are registered with the state Department of Administrative Services, to receive invitations to bid in the area of low voltage security equipment and systems; we no longer bid to the county, as several years experience has shown they are simply using our bids to beat down the price of their "sweetheart" vendors; we have continuing relationships with a major metropolitan police department and that city's health department, department of water, the engineering department, the income tax division and city hall facilities management. These requirements for posting and notification, and the appropriate attestations of compliance with the necessary supporting documentation are routine requirements which we meet. I'm not saying necessarily that you're wrong about government promotion of virtue, George-but i am saying that you have yet to demonstrate that you are right.

(Edit: I will read your response as i have the time, and reply to that.)

0 Replies

Setanta,

Have you ever experienced a Department of Labor Equal Opportunity audit? These are done at the government's option for all government contractors. Typically the auditors produce a list of findings of various statistical anomalies and produce a draft "mitigation agreement". One either signs the agreement and takes on the contractural obligation to comply with its provisions or faces the consequences of being found 'not in compliance' . There are avenues of appeal, but until they are resolved, one loses his Federal contracts. The agreements can involve requirements for diversity training, or altered business practices. I believe this constitutes the promotion of something.

( Some years ago I was running a consulting engineering company that specialized in advanced structural and nuclear engineering services, mostly for electrical utilities. We won some Federal work with the Department of Energy and were rewarded with one of these audits. One of the non-negotiable elements of the "mitigation agreement" I was coerced into signing was to add active recruiting programs at "Historically Black colleges", notwithstanding the fact that we only hired (and employed) structural and nuclear engineers with advanced degrees , and that none of the subject colleges offered these programs. I signed, and we pretended to comply.)

The defense and Energy departments do indeed require diversity training of employees by contractors opereating facilities dedicated solely to their services. The requirements are contractural, and they are enforced.

States and municipalities add additional contract requirements, ranging from the old boycotts of Apartheit South Africa, to affirmative action requirements for a diverse set of protected categories of peple.

0 Replies

Yes, George, i am aware that those who "operate facilities dedicated soley to [Federal] services" are required to meet such standards. I believe, however, from the documents i have seen when preparing proposals for Federal invitations to bid, that these apply only to those who operate or create facilities for dedicated service, and that they result from contract obligations incurred by the Feds in negotiations with labor unions. This might be one example of the impostion of a promotion of virtue, but although i may be wrong about this, i believe it arises from the actions of organized labor, and not the Feds themselves. You would know more about this than i, however, as we don't bid for dedicated operations.

0 Replies

Setanta,

While the Feds do indeed foolishly enter into agreements with Unions, they have no privity of contract with respect to a company's collective bargainning agreement with a union representing some of its employees. However governments do indeed frequently use contract requirements to require the indoctrination of the employees of non government corporations in certain matters, ranging from security and safety to diversity. I also once ran a Department of Energy Facility (Rocky Flats) as head of a private company. We faced a good deal of government meddling in both our labor relations and our employee indoctrination. However the two were not connected. Bureaucrats meddle because they can, not because they are required to do so. There was lots of promotion of whatever virtues were then in fashion in the Department of Energy bureaucracy. All were enforced as contract requirements. The financial consequences of failure to comply were severe.

All this, however, is a diversion from the central point. Governments do indeed promote a wide variety of virtues and prohibit some vices. This is done across the political spectrum - liberal and conservative, religious and secular. We are not likely to be able to find a satisfactory abtract rule for determining when this is, and is not, appropriate.

0 Replies

We faced something similar in dealing with the Fed. We had originally provided subcontractor services to install and program a security system. When the Federal Reserve decided to expand their access control and surveillance systems, they contacted us directly. About a week after receiving the invitation to bid, we were contacted by someone identifying himself as a compliance officer of the the Federal Reserve. He started to ask us a series of loaded questions about workplace posting and notification requirements. When he asked about compliance with ERISA, i knew he was treading where he had no business to go, and told him as much.

About two weeks later, we were contacted by a local manager of the Federal Reserve, who wanted to know why we hadn't submitted the bid package, and intimating that he was anxious to secure our services (we have an excellent local "word-of-mouth" reputation, which is the most common means of making contacts and securing jobs in the industrial low-voltage security business). When i told him that we didn't care to meet the requirements which the previous caller had implied were were obliged to meet, this gentleman asked if we were incomplaince with the written requirements outlined in the bid package. When i assured him we were, he urged us to submit the bid, and to refer any future callers to him. We have not heard anything further about such "extra" requirements, and continue to maintain a good relationship with this customer (who, admittedly, is not a big account).

When i worked for state government, i constantly saw people who were, in rather cruel terms, nobodies, who lorded it over those who would do business with the state, simply because, as you say, they could, and not necessarily because they had a legal basis to do so.

Well, i asked you to get down to cases, and it seems we've at least determined one case in which it may be said the government is in the promotion of virtue business.

0 Replies

At least one! How about tax deductions for charity; the Federal employees (and contractor) Combined Federal campaign fund drives; Federal educational and indoctrination programs for both the general public and for public schools in various civic virtues, ranging from recycling to diversity to thrift, avoiding drugs and tobacco, to properly securing campfires in public parks. How about laws protecting personal ant property rights? (Are these not prohibition of certain vices - theft, assault and murder?)

0 Replies

Back later, Boss, when i have more time.

0 Replies

It seems to me that it does not matter who initiates or pushes for a particular virtue; i.e. safety in the workplace. What fits with the thread thesis is whether government should require and/or enforce activities or policies that promotes virtue. If the unions pushed for safety in the workplace, it is nevertheless the government who passes the OSHA laws and who has the power to enforce them. It is the government who passes work comp laws that allow employers to benefit by rewarding employees for safe records and also allow employers/insurance companies to penalize employees who fail to use safety equipment/devices or who are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs on the job. In this case the government is definitely promoting a virtue of safe practices.

George's observation re resistance to promotion of any virtue that is associated with religion is right on target. The laws are full of mandates that originated in religious teachings: it is against the law to steal ("Thou shalt not steal"); it is against the law to commit murder ("Thou shalt not kill"); it is against the law to commit perjury ("Thou shalt not bear false witness"). These are all okay because they make good sense even though they all promote religious virtues of honesty, non violence, truthfulness. The secular camp can ignore the religious origins.

But extend religious virtues to other practical matters perhaps as beneficial to society but less tangible: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or
"Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" (i.e the old Sunday blue laws), "Honor thy parents" (obligation to care for the elderly) and immediately questions of separation of Church and State, and accusations of intrusive government meddling are shouted from the housetops. Sometimes the separation between secular and religious virtues are blurred and entangled.

Then there are even the more subjective, and/or ambivalent and/or ambiguous virtues government promotes; i.e. abstinance from drugs where pot is illegal but alcohol and tobacco are not, but children are protected regardless by age limits. Tobacco farmers are subsidized by the same government that are taxing it to death while slowly making it illegal to use it anywhere; the schools conduct nutrition classes and push insurance companies to include coverage of treatment of obesity while heavily subsidizing the sugar growers, etc.

Funding or withholding funds are other means of promoting government virtue; i.e. a pro life virtue is promoted by not funding abortion clinics, stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, etc. while a pro choice virtue is promoted by funding these same activities.

Sometimes government promotion of virtue borders on the ludicrous such as in preaching abstinance to school kids while passing out free condoms. And sometimes attempts to promote virtue create even more controversy: i.e. whether a book saying homosexuality is abnormal or "Heather has Two Mommies" should be placed in the school library. Does it promote virtue to put both in the library so the children can decide? Or does it promote virtue to declare neither acceptable for gradeschoolers.

My answer to the broader question is yes, the government should promote virtue when it can be clearly identified, and in most cases, except where constitutional requirements are involved, it is acceptable and proper for elected officials to vote the conscience of their constituencies. In issues in which virtue is too ambiguous to clearly define, the government should simply stay out of it.

0 Replies

I am leery of most theoretical rules for the desirable behavior or perfectability of government or for government efforts to perfect the behaviors or development of individuals or people generally.

Democratic government is at best a pragmatic thing. A very beneficial part of the British legal heritage we inherited is that of 'muddling through' complex and often contradictory doctrines to find practical and tolerable solutions that can evolve with the public will. The overly theoretical and abstract approach taken in the early French Revolution and the even more absurd Communist attempt to develop and perfect 'socialist man' both led to great injustice and human suffering.

I don't think that the pursuit of virtue of any kind is, of itself, a proper role of government. Instead government promotes many virtues as a means to achieve other ends - maintenance of public order, safety and security, protection of individual freedoms and property rights, etc. To maintain the consent of people there must be sufficient consistency in the governments rules - murder can't be prohibited on Monday, but OK on Tuesday. Beyond that, the degree of government penetration in this area of life should generally be kept to what is practical and necessary.

In keeping with this principle I would prefer to see such issues in these areas as may arise resolved more in lthe legislative process than in the judicial one. I believe Roe vs. wade was wrong because it removed the ability of legislatures to enact locally tolerable solutions to an otherwise unresolvable dilemma (when does 'life' begin?). Similarly I would oppose a constitutional amendment about homosexual 'marriage', preferring in this area as well to allow different states to take their own approaches to the question. (There has already been enacted a federal law removing the obligation of other states to recognize all the enactments of others in this area.)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

At least one! How about tax deductions for charity; the Federal employees (and contractor) Combined Federal campaign fund drives; Federal educational and indoctrination programs for both the general public and for public schools in various civic virtues, ranging from recycling to diversity to thrift, avoiding drugs and tobacco, to properly securing campfires in public parks. How about laws protecting personal ant property rights? (Are these not prohibition of certain vices - theft, assault and murder?)

Tax deductions for charitable deductions date to an era when government provided almost no social services, and those at the state and local level not the Federal. The government had then, and has now, a proximate interest in easing the burden on the public purse through the activities of private organizations which provide services which might otherwise be the responsibility of government. This is why i continue to object to your use of virtue. What you can define as virtue, i can almost always point to as simply a pragmatic matter.

I have not the least notion of what you mean by combined Federal campaign fund drives. If it refers to such things as the United Way charitable funds, then i would refer you to the above.

Federal educational programs for the inculcation of civic participation would easily fit under the rubric of "securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." I think you might come closer to a description of promoting virtue here, although i consider it debatable, because it is in the interest of public peace to have citizen participation. Recycling is hardly a virtue, and as we voraciously eat our way through available resources, its pragmatic value stands forth far more than any putative virtue. We've been down the "diversity" path, and i gave you a point for that one. Thrift is one of the most pragmatic, as opposed to virtuous, activities i could think of in terms of what government would promote. Deficit spending and simply financing the national debt puts a heavy burden on available credit capital. Savings by the public help to minimize the impact of government fiscal policies. Additionally, those with savings who suffer serious injury or illness are less likely to become a charge upon the public purse. I rather think the government ought not to be in the business of attempting to reduce or eliminate tobacco or alcohol use, but a case could easily be made that this benefits government through reduced costs for the medical problems attendant upon such practices, and the horrible toll paid on the highway due to drunken driving. Considering what it costs to fight forest fires, and the number of lives which are routinely lost among fire fights in the best of circumstances, i consider fire prevention programs to be pragmatic, as opposed to the promotion of virtue.

As for the issue of protecting property and property rights, this is one of the prime reasons for governments to exist--to ensure the terms of the social contract. In the same manner, policing crimes such as theft, assault or murder are simply responses to the reasonable prohibition of such activities inherent in the social contract. As a vice is a transgression against oneself, these things do not qualify--they are transgressions against society, not self.

Fox's naive appeal to the contention that laws against murder or perjury are based upon religious values displays the rather simple-minded bigotry of the Judeo-christian tradition. To suggest that there were no social contract with a prohibition on murder or bearing false witness until the Hebrews overcame their illiteracy and began writing down their tribal historical fantasies is more than a little ridiculous. Among the hamitic peoples of Egypt and of Sumer thousands of years before the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian captivity (they were very likely illiterate before that time), there were prohibitions on behavior which had an obvious great potential for social disruption.

It is the simplest conceit to think that one needs anyone's particular deity to tell them that societies will not survive without the policing of violent or deceitful behavior.

0 Replies

There are many forms of "simple minded bigotrty", not all are religious in origin.

I think you fail to make the necessary distinction between the motivation for a certain action on the part of government, and the attributes of the action itself. It is true that the government has a number of pragmatic reasons to encourage thrift, cleanliness and charity (to name but a few) on the part of its citizens. That does not at all alter the fact that these qualities are almost universally considered to be virtues on the part of those who exhibit them.

I think we agree that the proper role of government is to pursue the practical benefits that these virtues bring to the public, as opposed to the virtues themselves. Perfecting its citizens is not a role I would gladly see governments take on. Indeed it is often the first step on a road that has repeatedly led to wide-spread oppression and murder.

Nonetheless governments do indeed, for the best of pragmatic reasons, often promote certain virtues on the part of their citizens. Not all virtues, mind you - merely those that contribute to the achievement of its proper goals in a practical way. Public consent is a vital factor here, and for this reason I prefer the flexibility and variability of local democratic forms of decision-making. There is a large potential gray area here and I believe the democratic choice of people through their elected representatives is the right means as opposed to bureaucratic action. decisions by various elites or even judicial fiat.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I am not proposing that the government promote more or fewer virtues, nor am, I "slinging virtue around".

I merely pointed out certain observable facts concerning the rather ubiquitous practice of most western governments of promoting a wide variety of what are commonly held to be virtues. I added that even the most secular and liberal elements in the political spectrum are also involved in the promotion of some virtues.

Quite true

I also noted that much of the controversy that exists on the matter has to do with perceptions of the presence or absence of spiritual or religious motivation on the part of this or that advocate. Increasingly such motivations are held by many to invalidate the arguments of those who hold them. (Setanta has demonstrated this for us.)

Quite true too.

'Some virtues' does not mean 'all virtues'. My central point is that I don't believe it is possible to find an abstract answer to the central question of this thread, namely how to identify the "right" virtues, deserving of government promotion. In such cases a more pragmatic approach is usually best. Democracy and legislatures provide a reliable means of doing this. Of course constitutional limits must be set and observed, but a good deal of non-prodctive sound and fury has resulted from the attempt to force judicial absolutes on all aspects of certain related questions.

I think you have chosen to transform the central question of this thread in response to some of the more wild eyes responses. Irrespective of what may or may not constitue virtue, there is a valid question: Should government promote virtue? Unfortunately so many responses to this question have been mired in what may or may not be a virtue. If one is in favor of a democratic form of government one must, essentially, allow for the majority to determine what is virtue and what is vice. Our own system of government has the means to protect society from the tyranny of the majority, but, ultimately, it is the majority of any society that needs to be satisfied. The concept of society is meaningless if individual interest is the driving force of government.

I do not believe that citing a certain behavior as a virtue is a sufficient reason to conclude that government should either promote or require it. Nor do I believe that the government should involve itself in the suppression of all vices. I note that it does some of both and that, though there is some disagreement on details, nearly everyone believes that some virtues should be promoted and some vices suppressed by government. My evident conclusion is that the distinction between virtue and vice is not a useful (or sufficient) guide for the selection of "right" government activity.

Certainly, the singular citing of a behavior as a virtue doesn't require the government to promote it. Government should only promote those virtues which can be demonstrated to preserve and advance society, and which are accepted by the majority of society's members.

Similarly, government should prohibit only those behaviors which can be classified as vices because of their demonstrable negative impact on society, and which are rejected by the majority.

The bit about the spiritual/secular friction is an observable fact. I did not express a position on the matter, though it is true that I find the attempt to validate or invalidate the merits of a particular argument, based on the supposed inner motivations of its advocates to be highly illogical.

Secular/spirtual friction is indeed an observable fact, and an unfortunate one.

0 Replies

Government...and the promotion of virtue.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know