The Borders of Things

The State of Things

Ryan and I have had a bit of back and forth. Be sure to read his post here before reading my response.

First off, I don't think I'm using "moral," particularly in my piece on citizenry, as an honorific at all. I'm using it in the sense of a faculty, a capability. In Rome, a citizen was a political agent, while a slave was not. A human being is a moral agent, while a tree is not. It is up to the moral agent whether those actions are going to be morally/ethically good--they can just as easily be evil. But without the agency, you can't do either.

I'm much closer to Ryan on the issue of pragmatism than he may think (and much closer than I've been in the past), but I think the split between city of God and city of Man is dangerous, for two reasons. One, it essentially washes the hands of the state by making efficiency the only logic underwhich political power operates. One could probably say that it is the only power under which it can operate, hence to speak of its moral agency is futile. But if we say that a state can perpetrate evil acts, we have to say that a state can also act good.

The second reason I find the two worlds split dangerous is that it denies anyone outside the city of God the ability for moral reasoning. (This gets us back to differing theologies, which is a relevant but larger conversation than either of us have time for). In other words, simply because someone is not within the city of God does not mean that they cannot think within and act within ethical categories. Moreover, these categories can be articulated rationally--that's what the secular project of philosophical ethics is all about. I'm not talking about the search for a Platonic one, or anything like that. I'm talking about the ability to be in a situation and say "is this the right thing to do?," not just "is this the most efficient thing to do?" Is this ability to reason perfect? No. Possible? Yes. If its not, then the Enlightenment was a tragic waste of time. As much time as I spend bashing the Enlightenment, I don't want to throw it out altogether.

The possibility for moral reasoning is why human beings of every religious and philosophical stripe can forge something like a society. And it is the defining characteristic of what I would call civilization, a word Ryan uses a fair bit. What makes a state civilized is not an essence but a habit of action and thought that recognizes the ethical consequences of the laws it passes and the wars it forges. My argument regarding citizenry is an attempt to define the necessary division of labor that allows that process of self-critique to occur.

In theory, this all sounds somewhat feasible. In practice, however, it is far more messy and far more difficult. However, I don't see any other way out. The state is too powerful of a force to let off the hook, and this is the best argument I can think of for the promotion of democracy. If we divide these sphere's too sharply, then we have no real objection to something like the concentration camps, other than a feeble argument along the lines of "these are not expedient."

The process of bringing ethical reasoning to bear on political action (the task, as I have argued, of citizens within the state, particularly a democracy) is the best answer to the question "what does an moral state look like?" I realize that answer is probably not very satisfactory, but I think it grants flexibility without reducing us to sheer utilitarianism. I for one am unwilling to annul the marriage between power and responsibility, but I realize that it's a union that requires a lot of counseling to make it. "It" is not the end of history, heaven on earth, the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. "It" is the constant viscissitudes of human life on this planet, a perpetual now that we can't escape.

This is written in a bit of haste, an a discussion like this requires more time. I'm open to responses, as I know I've left a lot unsaid and a lot unclear. But other studies call to me, and I'd be acting unwisely if I fail to heed the call.

Posted by pjaussen at August 10, 2006 09:00 AM | TrackBack