John Adams famously said about the U.S. government:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
He said the government envisioned in the constitution wasn’t powerful enough to contend with unbridled immorality, avarice, ambition, etc. It only worked under certain preconditions.
A lot of people are concerned today about fake news, misinformation, “news” sites that are more focused on clicks and eyeballs and ad revenue than truth. But that doesn’t even tell the whole tale. If we were limited to “news” sites that had a profit motive, that might still be manageable.
Unfortunatley, on top of that we have wacky conspiracy sites, flat Earthers, people who spout ridiculous nonsense to get their five minutes of fame … or whatever. Maybe they only do it for the jollies.
Does free speech — like the U.S. system of government — have its own set of cultural assumptions? Does it only work with people who have certain characteristics?
I’m beginning to think so, and I’m trying to formulate a list.
Critical thinking is obviously an important thing. People need to be trained to ask “how do you know this?” and “what facts might go against what you’re saying?”
Some sort of regard for the witness of the majority is important, but I’m not sure how far to take that.
When it comes to social media, a commitment not to give or take offense seems like a good idea.
It’s also necessary to be fair in how you represent other views, and to hear people out.
You can’t jump to conclusions. You can’t put people in boxes. You can’t say “if you believe A then you believe B,” or “if you’re in this demographic, you believe C.”
The more I think about it, the more fragile free speech seems to be. It requires a commitment to quite a few public virtues that we’re not pressing on people these days.
What do you think?
QUOTE: “The more I think about it, the more fragile free speech seems to be. It requires a commitment to quite a few public virtues that we’re not pressing on people these days. What do you think?
I think you’re spot on! Even terms like “fake news” have been used to shut down speech versus encouraging an exchange of ideas. Albeit not comprehensive, the following would likely enhance our ability to engage in effective open speech:
*Patience/tolerance
*Viewing issues from multiple perspectives
*Clear/critical thinking
*Active listening -being willing to hear others even when if they differ
* Seeking to understand and to be understood
* Questioning/challenging assumptions
* Identifying common ground, as feasible
*Giving the benefit of the doubt until motive can be clearly established
*Avoiding tribalism, hyper-partisanism as a means of framing all ideas or perspectives
*Ability to express oneself clearly and succinctly
*Humility and willingness to course-correct when one is demonstrated to be incorrect
*Commitment to facts and truth
*Avoiding hypersensitivity-being too easily offended
*Willingness to disagree agreeably
*Offering respect and avoiding ad hominem responses
Good list. But trying to build a culture around these things takes work. Wagging your finger at somebody is easy. 🙂
You don’t build a culture of good people. You frame a constitution to deal with the bad ones and hopefully there will be some good ones to keep things on even keel. Both right and left make the mistake that they can somehow improve mankind.
It’s never ending work and would likely take generations to take root. I suspect people like the “fight” more than identifying facts and truth. So, I don’t expect things to change any time soon. 😉
In the time of John Adams, the prevailing morals and religion allowed for the enslavement of black people and for the exclusion of women from participation in politics, as they had no right to vote (and were deprived of other rights as well). Could we ever say that the people who allowed for such abominations were moral or religious in any acceptable way? Indeed, I am hard put to think of any time when the American people as a whole was moral or (at least in any morally significant way) religious, and yet we have been governed by the Constitution. In view of this undeniable fact I would have to reject the statement rejected by Adams.
Humans have always been involved in horrible stuff. Slavery was either universal or close to it when Adams spoke. I don’t believe women had the right to vote anywhere on the planet — although maybe in the Nordic countries.
So please tell us at what date in history people can be called “moral or religious in any acceptable way.” 70 years ago, during Jim Crow? 25 years ago, when everyone lived in fear of nuclear annihilation? Now, when we’re slaughtering millions of babies?
“Righteous Lot” offered to give his daughters to the men of Sodom, and committed incest with his daughters. King David was an adulterer and murderer.
Your understanding of “moral or religious” is deficient and historically nonsensical.
My understanding of “moral and religious” is in fact fully accurate and historically well grounded. People in general always, with few exceptions, have been grotesquely immoral, and again not religious insofar as we understand religion properly to include sound morality, and will probably never change. So obviously a constitution needs to be suited to govern immoral and irreligious people. That said, the American Constitution was a pretty good start at that, although obviously in need of extensive tweaking.
Perhaps the only people who disagree with me on this point are unbridled relativists (apparently Crowhill with his brand of crude historicism), leftists (who are so insane to actually believe that humanity can be “improved”), and perhaps many conservatives on drugs (which is indeed what a lot of the current Trumpists may be, judging by the contents of their preachments, but also by the fact that many of them come from areas where opioid addiction is rampant).
Especially given Adams’s own abhorrence of slavery and his intention to write the constitution to set the standard for government practice, not to reflect and be limited to the existing situation.
Whatever Adams personal morality might have been, the American people were generally okay with slavery during his time.