What is justice? The common good? Are they just words of idealistic thinking, or do they have a deeper meaning? The way of life is difficult and full of fright. One of the new ways to think of this problem is communitarianism. It is a political ideology that is not only critical of classical liberalism, but a better way of life for humans to live and understand the freedoms that they deserve. Freedom and justice for the individual are something that communitarianism thrives on, unlike other political ideologies. Justice for all, and the common good for all is the mantra of communitarianism. Political theory is mostly about the human condition and how we live our lives. Political theory tries to understand people and how we react to others.
…show more content…
Freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, free markets and gender equality are all tenets of the liberal ideology. Complete freedom from the thoughts or ideas of others imposing their will upon you. You are the only one that can answer for yourself and what is best for you. You are responsible to only yourself as long as you do not interfere with others. We should “maximize welfare, or (as the utilitarians put it) seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” (Sandel pg. 19)The biggest problem with all of this is that the freedom of religion, of personal morality is not something that can be shut off and ignored, we have to have some sort of welfare for those less fortunate, or at least even the playing field so that everyone gets their fair share. We all interject our personal ideas and moral tendencies into any debate whether speech, the press, the markets or gender. To say that we should not look at our moral compass and completely ignore its effect or input on a topic is absurd. It is not possible. “Men and women should not inject their personal morality into public policy debates is practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.” (Sandel pg. …show more content…
To achieve a just society we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life, and to create a public culture, hospitable to the disagreements that will inevitably arise.” (Sandel pg. 261) An argument of maximizing utility and welfare or simply respecting the freedom of choice from the utilitarian or libertarian view is an argument that does not address their shortcomings. “Justice is not only about the right way to distribute things. It is also about the right way to value things.” (Sandel pg. 261) Equality and liberty are something that we see as the same things. Equality of outcome is the idea that everyone should have the same level of income and place in society. There should be no classes. (Friedman’s pg. 129) If we look at these problems from the communitarian way, you eliminate the shortcomings of simply choosing for an individual or addressing only maximizing the welfare of a choice. That is what is taking place right now. If you have a different opinion than myself, you somehow feel you have the right to interject what I am doing instead of ignoring me, and letting me go on my way. You need to look at the community as a whole, and decide what is in their best interest, not in one individual. By doing this you provide freedom, but in a sense that is the right decision for everyone, or at least what should be best for everyone. You cannot ignore
Freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, free markets and gender equality are all tenets of the liberal ideology. Complete freedom from the thoughts or ideas of others imposing their will upon you. You are the only one that can answer for yourself and what is best for you. You are responsible to only yourself as long as you do not interfere with others. We should “maximize welfare, or (as the utilitarians put it) seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” (Sandel pg. 19)The biggest problem with all of this is that the freedom of religion, of personal morality is not something that can be shut off and ignored, we have to have some sort of welfare for those less fortunate, or at least even the playing field so that everyone gets their fair share. We all interject our personal ideas and moral tendencies into any debate whether speech, the press, the markets or gender. To say that we should not look at our moral compass and completely ignore its effect or input on a topic is absurd. It is not possible. “Men and women should not inject their personal morality into public policy debates is practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.” (Sandel pg. …show more content…
To achieve a just society we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life, and to create a public culture, hospitable to the disagreements that will inevitably arise.” (Sandel pg. 261) An argument of maximizing utility and welfare or simply respecting the freedom of choice from the utilitarian or libertarian view is an argument that does not address their shortcomings. “Justice is not only about the right way to distribute things. It is also about the right way to value things.” (Sandel pg. 261) Equality and liberty are something that we see as the same things. Equality of outcome is the idea that everyone should have the same level of income and place in society. There should be no classes. (Friedman’s pg. 129) If we look at these problems from the communitarian way, you eliminate the shortcomings of simply choosing for an individual or addressing only maximizing the welfare of a choice. That is what is taking place right now. If you have a different opinion than myself, you somehow feel you have the right to interject what I am doing instead of ignoring me, and letting me go on my way. You need to look at the community as a whole, and decide what is in their best interest, not in one individual. By doing this you provide freedom, but in a sense that is the right decision for everyone, or at least what should be best for everyone. You cannot ignore