<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Think Locally, Act Locally
Review: THE MORALITY OF EVERYDAY LIFE is one of the more interesting books on ethics that I've read in a while. Thomas Fleming, a top paleconservative writer, contrasts an "ancient alternative" to the liberal tradition. The liberal tradition (growing out of Descartes, Locke and others) is characterized by certain assumptions: Individuals and governments are the central players in ethical considerations; moral behavior is a question on rational decision-making; moral principles must be applied with equal consistency to all situations. Yet the ancient (and in fact almost universal) way of looking at moral questions is different. I have different obligations to different people. My duties to family and the world are not equal. Charity, as they say, beings at home. To the liberal "citizen of the world" this is provincialism at its worst. "[T]here is a consistency of tone, a certain universal high-mindedness that is impatient with distinctions and disdainful of irrational attachments. Sentiments of loyalty, because they are not entirely rational, do not yield their secrets to analysis or measurement." [p. 103.] People who profess a love for mankind first and foremost have the tendency to be cruel to their family and friends. It's easy to justify almost anything in the name of one's love for mankind. (A point made in Paul Johnson's suggestive, if problematic book, INTELLECTUALS.) Dr. Fleming's book, as one might suggest by my brief description, is hardly rationalistic and abstract. There are plenty of examples from "everyday life" illustrating the arguments of the book. My only complaint is that I had hoped Dr. Fleming would have situated his ethical approach within the tradition advanced by writers of the Old Right. Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet are mentioned once, and Russell Kirk not at all.
Rating:
Summary: Think Locally, Act Locally
Review: THE MORALITY OF EVERYDAY LIFE is one of the more interesting books on ethics that I've read in a while. Thomas Fleming, a top paleconservative writer, contrasts an "ancient alternative" to the liberal tradition. The liberal tradition (growing out of Descartes, Locke and others) is characterized by certain assumptions: Individuals and governments are the central players in ethical considerations; moral behavior is a question on rational decision-making; moral principles must be applied with equal consistency to all situations. Yet the ancient (and in fact almost universal) way of looking at moral questions is different. I have different obligations to different people. My duties to family and the world are not equal. Charity, as they say, beings at home. To the liberal "citizen of the world" this is provincialism at its worst. "[T]here is a consistency of tone, a certain universal high-mindedness that is impatient with distinctions and disdainful of irrational attachments. Sentiments of loyalty, because they are not entirely rational, do not yield their secrets to analysis or measurement." [p. 103.] People who profess a love for mankind first and foremost have the tendency to be cruel to their family and friends. It's easy to justify almost anything in the name of one's love for mankind. (A point made in Paul Johnson's suggestive, if problematic book, INTELLECTUALS.) Dr. Fleming's book, as one might suggest by my brief description, is hardly rationalistic and abstract. There are plenty of examples from "everyday life" illustrating the arguments of the book. My only complaint is that I had hoped Dr. Fleming would have situated his ethical approach within the tradition advanced by writers of the Old Right. Richard Weaver and Robert Nisbet are mentioned once, and Russell Kirk not at all.
<< 1 >>
| 
