NONVIOLENCE AS A CIVIC VIRTUE

published in the Newsletter (Spring/Summer, 2005)

of the Boston Research Center for the 21st Century

Peace is the primary public good--James K. Galbraith

When one thinks of the question “Which came first--moral rules or virtues?” the obvious answer, I believe that virtues came first.  Moral imperatives are abstractions from thousands of years of observing loyal, honest, patient, just, and compassionate behavior, just as moral prohibitions have come from equally ancient experiences with the vices. 

Critics of virtues ethics claim that virtues vary across cultures, so it is impossible to choose which are the correct ones.  In response, I say we should celebrate this rich diversity of human experience and learn to tolerate the minor vices that irritate us. Even as abstractions, moral rules still have normative force, so international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would still serve as a check on practices that most human beings find detestable.

            English philosopher Leslie Stephen once described virtue ethics as follows: "Morality is internal.  The moral law. . . has to be expressed in the form, 'be this,' not in the form  'do this.' . . . The true moral law says 'hate not,' instead of 'kill not.' . . . The only mode of stating the moral law must be as a rule of character."  People of good character and virtue require no reminder of what the rules are or what their duty is.  As a result such a society would require few police, judges, and prisons.

While once discussing energy policy, a national leader implied that conservation was a quaint personal virtue that somehow could not have any practical effect.  This comment reveals one of the greatest moral problems of our time: the division between personal and civic virtue, and the corollary assumption that as long as citizens are not breaking any laws, they have no moral obligations to others or even to themselves.

Contemporary liberals can no longer believe that the state is morally neutral, and that merely providing a minimal legal framework will automatically lead people to good and happy lives.  This obviously has not happened, and the reason is that people generally do not have the virtues that are required to navigate the moral obstacles of contemporary life. 

While insisting on the pursuit of the great liberal values of tolerance, equality, justice, and free discussion, liberals should join with conservatives in supporting virtue formation in our families and character education in our schools.  The very survival of our nation depends on such an alliance.

Recent critics of character education in the schools argue that it has been taken over by conservatives with a political agenda.  Liberals can only fault themselves for allowing this to happen, and for not sufficiently acknowledging the severe crisis of values in our country.  To overcome the criticism that virtues taught are too ethnocentric, school curricula need to have units that show how the virtues express themselves in the world’s major cultures and religions.

One of the advantages of discussing the virtues is that we can come to an agreement about them much more easily than arguing about moral rules.  For example, the debate about sexual abstinence could be constructively redirected by a focus on the virtue of fidelity.  There should be no disagreement at all about the universal virtues of courage, loyalty, integrity, compassion, and justice, and there are very creative ways in which these values can be taught.

The greatest challenge to any program of moral education is the violence that is endemic in our culture.  Here liberals have much to offer by stressing research that clearly demonstrates that violent behavior is learned and not natural to human beings. The virtue of nonviolence, along with its allies patience and fortitude, should be taught as central virtues in any character education program. 

As future citizens, children should be taught that violence is never morally necessary, and that conflicts should always, whenever possible, be resolved peacefully.  Following the lead of Christ, the Buddha, Gandhi, and King nonviolence would not just be optional personal virtue but a required civic virtue.

Nick Gier is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Idaho.  His most recent book is The Virtue of Non-Violence: from Gautama to Gandhi (State University of New York Press, 2004).  He is currently working on a new book on the origins of religious violence.