Ethics in a pluralist society

[Sen McGlinn]

Pluralism is here to stay: the alternatives required to eliminate it are too terrible to consider. That means that we have to think again about how the whole (‘society’) and its parts fit together, how the state relates to religious, altruistic and ethnic communities, and where the ethics come from. If a society has one culture, as was once the case, that culture nurtures the virtues which the state needs. But no society now or in the future can have one culture, one set of common values, yet the state still needs most of its citizens to be law-abiding most of the time, it needs virtuous citizens. So how can we have virtuous citizens without common values?
More of this on the Daily Kos,

Ethics in a plural society

Pluralism is here to stay: the alternatives required to eliminate it are too terrible to consider. That means that we have to think again about how the whole (‘society’) and its parts fit together, how the state relates to religious, altruistic and...

www.dailykos.com

a discussion there would be nice.

Background
Daily Kos has a group called "Street Prophets." I would like to get some Bahai thinking on social philosophy under discussion there.


I have a quote for that:
"Efforts to participate in the discourses of society constitute a third area of action in which the friends are engaged. Such participation can occur at all levels of society, from the local to the international, through various types of interactions -- from informal discussions on Internet forums and attendance at seminars, to the dissemination of statements and contact with government officials. What is important is for Bahá'ís to be present in the many social spaces in which thinking and policies evolve on any one of a number of issues.." (On behalf of the UHJ, to the NSA of Australia, Jan 4 2009)

 

[Ahanu]

Pluralism is here to stay: the alternatives required to eliminate it are too terrible to consider. That means that we have to think again about how the whole (‘society’) and its parts fit together, how the state relates to religious, altruistic and ethnic communities, and where the ethics come from. If a society has one culture, as was once the case, that culture nurtures the virtues which the state needs. But no society now or in the future can have one culture, one set of common values, yet the state still needs most of its citizens to be law-abiding most of the time, it needs virtuous citizens. So how can we have virtuous citizens without common values?
More of this on the Daily Kos,

Ethics in a plural society

Pluralism is here to stay: the alternatives required to eliminate it are too terrible to consider. That means that we have to think again about how the whole (‘society’) and its parts fit together, how the state relates to religious, altruistic and...

www.dailykos.com

a discussion there would be nice.

Background
Daily Kos has a group called "Street Prophets." I would like to get some Bahai thinking on social philosophy under discussion there.


I have a quote for that:
"Efforts to participate in the discourses of society constitute a third area of action in which the friends are engaged. Such participation can occur at all levels of society, from the local to the international, through various types of interactions -- from informal discussions on Internet forums and attendance at seminars, to the dissemination of statements and contact with government officials. What is important is for Bahá'ís to be present in the many social spaces in which thinking and policies evolve on any one of a number of issues.." (On behalf of the UHJ, to the NSA of Australia, Jan 4 2009)

Who decides who is a virtuous citizen and by what criteria?

Also, should common values be Western values like pluralism as a positive good for society?

How does the lemon test filter out hostile groups that don't want to fall in line? How do we handle such communities?

 

[wil]

Seems to me your personal ethics and virtues will always supercede the edicts from on high at some point. There may be a cost to it if you break the norm, at a minimum people talk or roll their eyes, violate the "rule" far enough the law of the land will take over.

That works both ways...whether your violation is less or more virtuos than the standard.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Who decides who is a virtuous citizen and by what criteria?

Also, should common values be Western values like pluralism as a positive good for society?

How does the lemon test filter out hostile groups that don't want to fall in line? How do we handle such communities?

A virtuous citizen is a citizen who has a virtue, and virtues -- unlike values -- are universally agreed. Cowardice is not a virtue, in any world. Injustice is not something to strive for, in any religion or philosophy. Wisdom is everywhere valued. And so forth.

I do not believe that common values are necessary or possible. Would unicorns be a positive good? Meh. Horns and hooves health and safety hazards versus a nice white mane, it's a toss-up.

The "lemon test" regarding the US first amendment (non-establishment) has three criteria for a law:
- The law must have a secular (non-religious) purpose.
- The primary or principal effect of the law must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
- The law must not foster an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
In my article on Daily Kos (comments there are still open) said, that the state (each particular state) "needs to work with the ethnic, ethical, and religious communities ... not because one ethnicity is the leitcultuur and must be protected, or one religion is favoured for historical reasons, but for transparent and equally applied “reasons of state.” Something like the “lemon test” must be formulated for government partnerships with the communities in civic society."

"Hostile groups" -- hostile to the state - are not likely to be seeking state partnerships to achieve their social ends. Groups hostile to one another do not need to form the same state-subsidized school, or hospital. The equivalent of a lemon test would be to check that there are reasons of state -- including the desirability of fostering the religious, ethical and ethnic communities -- for the partnership. "We work with the Catholics because they uphold the Trinity" is not an argument.