A couple weeks ago someone commented that they would like to read more about Ethical Theory and how it might apply to defining values. I promised to write something and said it would take a few days. I had a family emergency out of state so it has been more than a few days. Sorry about that.
Ethical Theory in Progressive Politics is a book I am not going to write. Perhaps it has already been written and we are about to hear about it in a comment. In that case I will defer. If not, I'll check to see how popular this diary is. If it is well received I can imagine that I might write other diary entries about values. So, if you like it, recommend. I will put out a tip jar because this is a bit of work for me.
One of the most common ways of defining values is in terms of character. Good character traits are called virtues. Bad character traits are called vices. Defining one's values in this sense is an exercise in listing and describing these virtues and vices. The ethics of character are called virtue-based and focus on being, on what one ought
to be. This is often contrasted with ethics called action-based that focus on doing, what one ought
to do.
While I will not pretend to speak for progressive values, I can speak for mine. I do not see a way to map out how to describe virtues and vices without actually describing some. So, I will. I believe that these are progressive values. I am at the same time quite open to other views. Folks that want to add to my list are welcome. Any Philosophy Professors out there feel free to join in. I don't mean to steal your gig.
During the Clinton impeachment hearings there was a great deal of posturing on the question of character from such luminaries as Asa Hutchinson, Bob Barr, and Orrin Hatch. As they said, "character does matter." I found their pontifications outrageous as it seemed that they were trying to say that Democrats think that character doesn't matter and that President Clinton lacked character. We must not let conservatives define progressives as characterless. Instead, we need to boldly and assertively define virtuous and vicious character traits and hold conservatives to account for their flaws and shortcomings.
When the House Managers and their Senate supporters spoke of character I thought that what they were doing demonstrated their own lack of character rather than the President's. I was willing to agree that the President had some work to do on himself. I was not willing to agree that the President's character flaws represented a grave threat to the country. I thought and still believe that the leap from character flaws to grave national threat, if anyone actually made it at all, could only be made on the basis of bias and not reason. Reason is better. I like reason. I try to be reasonable. I even work at it.
Merriam-Webster defines reason as "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking, especially in orderly rational ways." It is not a difficult thing to reason to the conclusion that impeachment would be a long and difficult process for the entire country that could only lead to acquittal. Thus, if the fate of the nation was a genuine concern, impeachment was an empty gesture.
Bias is not better than reason. Acting from bias is living in the past, it is rejecting new and important information and paradigms in favor of rigidly protecting old information and a past perspective, even an irrelevant one. So, I see reason as a virtue and bias as a vice. As social and political beings I think it is essential that we value and promote reason over bias; that we continuously revise our understanding of the world as new information is available and that we act from what we know today.
This is not to devalue tradition. Tradition must inform our values, decisions, and actions today. If we devalue tradition we become people without past, and if we have no past we have no way to navigate the present. At the same time, to value only tradition is to live forever in the past, enshrining our values as dogma, and armoring ourselves against the prospect of any new thing.
Putting the country through the arduous impeachment proceedings over a personal indescretion was wrong. The values that informed the decision to do so were wrong. The character of those that promoted impeachment as appropriate was flawed.
Reason is a progressive value and bias is antithetical to it.
The President of the United States lied when he went on national television to warn the country about the consequences of the intersection of Iraqi weapons of Mass Destruction and Al Qaeda terrorists. He knew then that there were no weapons and no connection to Al Qaeda. Do I really have to say this? Not lying is better than lying. Every one of us would have been better served by the truth, including the President. I am not saying that we ought to go around inflicting the truth on everyone we meet. That can get very problematic very quickly, particularly for government officials with, say, national security obligations. But when we speak it is better to speak no untruths, particularly craven, self-serving and politically expedient ones that undermine the credibility of our nation abroad and the faith of its citizens at home.
In the end, the truth is our last and only refuge, our final defense against all manner of insanity. Without it we are lost without referents and sooner or later we find ourselves living in an unreal distortion without any notion of how to find our way back. So, we must strive always to know the truth in our minds and hearts. When we speak we must be sure to speak no untruth unless we have absolutely altruistic reasons for it. Even then we must approach lying with the utmost circumspection and humility.
Honesty, a studied and humble regard for the truth, is a progressive ideal and cynical dishonesty is inimical to it.
The Bush administration, backed by the recent Republican Majority, promotes its vision of America as an "ownership society." Ownership is what we have. Society is what we share. It is difficult for me to even use these two words in the same sentence. Regardless, having is good and sharing is better. Can there really be any disagreement on this? My mom started teaching me this as soon as I was old enough to socialize. I learned about it in Sunday School because Jesus taught that giving is more blessed than receiving. I have reinforced this view often as my giving has brought me wealth that cannot be measured in dollars. I've been taught that one of the most terrible and oppressive forms of poverty is having nothing to give and the prospect of this is truly horrifying to me.
The conservative view is that having is better, that greed is good, that we all ought to increase our wealth constantly through competition with each other. This view is selfish, limited, and unChristian. Competition produces winners and losers. Competition without rules produces a few huge winners and many destitute losers.
Generosity, enlightened by experience and faith, is a progressive virtue. Unconstrained greed makes generosity increasingly difficult and ultimately impossible.
So, I believe that reason, honesty, and generosity are progressive values rooted in character. Bias, dishonesty, and greed are character flaws that we cannot afford.