Posts
I was quite surprised to find, when I started to read Dagger, that his purpose was to try to reconcile the individualism of liberalism with the broader, more community-based aspects of republicanism. I, like a number of people (according to Dagger), thought that the two concepts were mutually exclusive. One was either individualistic or collectivist. The two seemed to be opposing viewpoints.
Given what I’ve read so far, I’ve really enjoyed Dagger’s argument. His idea that we achieve individualism only through our association with others makes sense to me, and I’m starting to see how that idea can bridge the gap between these two ideologies. This, right now, is what I see as his primary attempt to link the two schools of thought. Is this the extent of his attempt to link them, or is/was there another argument that I missed?
Building off of that attempt to link liberalism and republicanism, Dagger argues that “Autonomy requires community because the awareness of ourselves as selves capable of choice is something that others teach us, whittingly or not” (39). I’m not sure if I completely agree with this. It seems to me that even a child raised completely alone (I’m thinking of Tarzan-like situations here where the child is raised completely outside of society) would still realize that they had the capability to choose. Perhaps society helps us to refine our sense of choice, but I think we naturally realize that we have our own sense of choice regardless of the society that raises us. I realize that this is probably a minor point that would be difficult (if not impossible) to test, but I think it is an interesting thought experiment, if nothing else. Do you agree with Dagger on this point? Do we rely on society to realize that we can make choices, or is that ability innate?
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
I think he is not saying that we would not be able to make choices or would not have the cognitive ability of choice but that without societal input in our development as beings that make choices we would not but that society through civic virtue creates an environment to better realize our autonomy. So I think in the Tarzan case Dagger would probably say that Tarzan has the ability to make choice but that without out a group to help foster awareness of this choice as being separate from something else then autonomy does not really get developed as a concept. But all the same this seems to be a pretty small concern, I think the idea here is to show how civil virtue is needed for autonomy because when we become overly individualistic civic virtue is what could pull us back to a more balanced society because civil virtue is what makes individualism in a society possible insofar as it requires the cooperation of everyone else. Dagger talks about this as being the trade we make sometimes between what we personally would do and what we ought to do in order for others to be autonomous. What I was thinking of when reading this is when you have politicians that are morally opposed to abortions but believe that some right (legal usually but it could be an appeal to a moral right to autonomy) must be protected by them that allows people to have abortions.
ReplyDeleteI think that idea--that the law is a control mechanism for civic virtue--is really interesting. After all, when we look at judges, we expect them to make decisions based upon the law whether or not the law accords with their personal preferences. At the same time, we want our legislators to heed our will. So, would elections also serve a similar purpose in the political world?
ReplyDelete