You touched upon the moral framework that first accompanied the concept of autonomy connecting it to religious beliefs. But personally, it seems the moral framework of Aristotle and more recently articles about intellectual virtues Are a better foundation for maintaining liberal democratic republics. Basically, I side with Montesquieu, Alistair McIntyre et al on the need for civic and intellectual virtues as the educational foundation for a liberal democratic republic. Institutional protections against the natural tendency for individuals and groups to abuse power are insufficient.
In early modern Europe, autonomy was understood as the right to make choices within
pre-existing moral frameworks, frameworks established by various religious traditions.
I have previously mentioned to Prof. Fukuyama that it seems to me that, while Liberalism is "the water in which we swim" (or at least used to until the time of the Orange Menace), in our modernity who is teaching us how to swim? The pre-existing frameworks were "established by various religious traditions." The early liberals *assumed* that these frameworks would continue to be "established" and taught. They didn't even *consider* that such teaching might fade and so they couldn't, and didn't, make any framework whereby those values could be continued, as they *needed* to be. And those values are absolutely critical to dealing with the *emotional* side of human beings. Rationality and thought and "intellectual" are all great and absolutely necessary. But as we know from Haidt and Kahneman, sorry, but we ain't rational! How does the emotional/moral side of humans get shaped to allow civil harmony? It IS possible--visit Japan and you'll see. We've failed miserably to do that, and we're paying the ultimate price for our failure. I think there is a set of morals/values/goals that we can pretty much all agree on: the non-religious 6 of the Decalogue and The Golden Rule. Beyond that, communities should, can and do form around *other* issues. Belong if you want, join a different one if you want. But DO NOT forget the essentials that bind all such communities and all humans. This is our "educational foundation for a liberal democratic republic." How do we recover it? CAN we recover it, or are we doomed to more and more nastiness and thuggery?
Interesting, but your comment seems to ignore the evolution in moral values that has occurred since the "pre-existing values of various religions" were supreme. If you took a snap shot of moral values 5000 years ago, you would see something vastly different, but something that evolved into the "pre-existing values of various religions" and from which current values have evolved.
Sorry, I am not aware of how such values have changed since the beginnings of liberalism. I think, but don't know, that most/all religions have a basic creed fairly similar to the Decalogue. Even the "pre-existing values" included, for example, the Golden Rule. They just didn't think "the other guys" were humans so it was OK to kill them righteously. Sound like Islamic Jihad to you? History has been one of an expanding definition of who humanity is (see slavery) but in my view NOT a change in how humans should be treated. Did you have something else in mind?
I am claiming that the moral values actually held by people have changed over time. New moral norms have been added and others removed. This seems obvious. You point out "who should be considered human" has changed - that is big one. Your view of how people should be treated is not one most actual people have held. So I am not sure what you mean.
Sorry but in >2000 years I don't see much change in the Decalogue, The Golden Rule or in how people think they ought to be treated. Perhaps I'm talking about something much more basic than "moral norms have been added and others removed"? Are you thinking of "laws" as "moral norms"? Yes, the devil is in the details but if you aren't using the foundation for starters the details will indeed be messed up and frequently changed to accommodate social change. And to reiterate, my point is that liberalism didn't think they would have to, and so didn't, deal with the emotional side of humans. If we believe the non-religious 6 of the 10 in the Decalogue and the Golden Rule are the way we should live and behave, who's teaching that now?
I am talking about the way people used to behave that we would now consider abnormal, if not immoral. Few people now think cat burning or gruesome public executions are entertaining. Before the Enlightenment, Europeans thought it was immoral not to be a Christian. Before that to be a Protestant, before that to be an Arian, before that to be a Christian. One didn't need to doubt someone's humanity to kill or persecute them, wrong beliefs were enough.
Look at the Vikings: your decalogue was more of a to do list for them. They evolved into one of the most moral societies we know (also one of low religiosity).
An excellent essay, and one that I will reference in the future for its description of human nature theories in political history.
Unfortunately, the section about "scientific racism" fell into the same trap the author is arguing against. There are still brain size differences between groups, IQ tests have never shown Whites as a the top performing group (that would be Ashkenazi Jews and then East Asians), and after IQ testing was improved (90+ years ago) they have always shown a persistent gap between different groups, even as all groups have improved (Flynn Effect).
Ironically, the IQ explanation for group equity gaps - the one thing that might actually destroy woke ideology - is that one thing that intellectuals fear to discuss honestly.
“You can throw nature out with a pitchfork, but it will always come running back.”
The "correlation" between "brain size" and IQ tests is correlation, NOT causation. Brain size *might* be correlated with some of those things tested for on an "IQ test", which proves---nothing. When the farmer is driving Einstein across Death Valley at 115º and the truck quits, who's the genius? "It's all relative". There are more variations in ability within "groups" than between them, making such claims of "top performing" even more ridiculous.
I was inoculated against woke nonsense by Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate." This essay is an excellent "booster."
You touched upon the moral framework that first accompanied the concept of autonomy connecting it to religious beliefs. But personally, it seems the moral framework of Aristotle and more recently articles about intellectual virtues Are a better foundation for maintaining liberal democratic republics. Basically, I side with Montesquieu, Alistair McIntyre et al on the need for civic and intellectual virtues as the educational foundation for a liberal democratic republic. Institutional protections against the natural tendency for individuals and groups to abuse power are insufficient.
Todd: AMEN.
From this essay by Prof. Fukuyama:
In early modern Europe, autonomy was understood as the right to make choices within
pre-existing moral frameworks, frameworks established by various religious traditions.
I have previously mentioned to Prof. Fukuyama that it seems to me that, while Liberalism is "the water in which we swim" (or at least used to until the time of the Orange Menace), in our modernity who is teaching us how to swim? The pre-existing frameworks were "established by various religious traditions." The early liberals *assumed* that these frameworks would continue to be "established" and taught. They didn't even *consider* that such teaching might fade and so they couldn't, and didn't, make any framework whereby those values could be continued, as they *needed* to be. And those values are absolutely critical to dealing with the *emotional* side of human beings. Rationality and thought and "intellectual" are all great and absolutely necessary. But as we know from Haidt and Kahneman, sorry, but we ain't rational! How does the emotional/moral side of humans get shaped to allow civil harmony? It IS possible--visit Japan and you'll see. We've failed miserably to do that, and we're paying the ultimate price for our failure. I think there is a set of morals/values/goals that we can pretty much all agree on: the non-religious 6 of the Decalogue and The Golden Rule. Beyond that, communities should, can and do form around *other* issues. Belong if you want, join a different one if you want. But DO NOT forget the essentials that bind all such communities and all humans. This is our "educational foundation for a liberal democratic republic." How do we recover it? CAN we recover it, or are we doomed to more and more nastiness and thuggery?
Interesting, but your comment seems to ignore the evolution in moral values that has occurred since the "pre-existing values of various religions" were supreme. If you took a snap shot of moral values 5000 years ago, you would see something vastly different, but something that evolved into the "pre-existing values of various religions" and from which current values have evolved.
Sorry, I am not aware of how such values have changed since the beginnings of liberalism. I think, but don't know, that most/all religions have a basic creed fairly similar to the Decalogue. Even the "pre-existing values" included, for example, the Golden Rule. They just didn't think "the other guys" were humans so it was OK to kill them righteously. Sound like Islamic Jihad to you? History has been one of an expanding definition of who humanity is (see slavery) but in my view NOT a change in how humans should be treated. Did you have something else in mind?
I am claiming that the moral values actually held by people have changed over time. New moral norms have been added and others removed. This seems obvious. You point out "who should be considered human" has changed - that is big one. Your view of how people should be treated is not one most actual people have held. So I am not sure what you mean.
Sorry but in >2000 years I don't see much change in the Decalogue, The Golden Rule or in how people think they ought to be treated. Perhaps I'm talking about something much more basic than "moral norms have been added and others removed"? Are you thinking of "laws" as "moral norms"? Yes, the devil is in the details but if you aren't using the foundation for starters the details will indeed be messed up and frequently changed to accommodate social change. And to reiterate, my point is that liberalism didn't think they would have to, and so didn't, deal with the emotional side of humans. If we believe the non-religious 6 of the 10 in the Decalogue and the Golden Rule are the way we should live and behave, who's teaching that now?
I am talking about the way people used to behave that we would now consider abnormal, if not immoral. Few people now think cat burning or gruesome public executions are entertaining. Before the Enlightenment, Europeans thought it was immoral not to be a Christian. Before that to be a Protestant, before that to be an Arian, before that to be a Christian. One didn't need to doubt someone's humanity to kill or persecute them, wrong beliefs were enough.
Look at the Vikings: your decalogue was more of a to do list for them. They evolved into one of the most moral societies we know (also one of low religiosity).
An excellent essay, and one that I will reference in the future for its description of human nature theories in political history.
Unfortunately, the section about "scientific racism" fell into the same trap the author is arguing against. There are still brain size differences between groups, IQ tests have never shown Whites as a the top performing group (that would be Ashkenazi Jews and then East Asians), and after IQ testing was improved (90+ years ago) they have always shown a persistent gap between different groups, even as all groups have improved (Flynn Effect).
Ironically, the IQ explanation for group equity gaps - the one thing that might actually destroy woke ideology - is that one thing that intellectuals fear to discuss honestly.
“You can throw nature out with a pitchfork, but it will always come running back.”
The "correlation" between "brain size" and IQ tests is correlation, NOT causation. Brain size *might* be correlated with some of those things tested for on an "IQ test", which proves---nothing. When the farmer is driving Einstein across Death Valley at 115º and the truck quits, who's the genius? "It's all relative". There are more variations in ability within "groups" than between them, making such claims of "top performing" even more ridiculous.
yes, this essay is interesting and persuasive. Thanks, Mr, FF.