It might be immodest to think that anything can be added to all the careful thinking. The thing that keeps running through my mind is there are so many descriptions and still not the sense that someone has got it completely right. In such a situation it does seem to me that something else can be said, if only perhaps to say in different ways what has already been said.
One thing that should be said at the start is that it is a "national" crisis in a very special sense. We are not experiencing a "national" crisis -- in the way we might if threatened by a foreign power or economic collapse. The nation qua nation does not seem to be in dire straits. It is experienced at the personal level. It is a national crisis only in the sense that it touches everyone and is felt throughout the nation.
Something might also be said with regard to the situation being felt very strongly at the personal level. Perhaps it is this personal level experience that causes it to be described as a "moral and spiritual" crisis. But this doesn't quite get at it either. It is not a "personal" moral crisis in the sense of a loss of "personal" faith. Nor is it a spiritual crisis in the sense of a loss of belief in one's long held values. A lot of morally and spiritually secure persons feel this moral crisis quite deeply. Many of these people say that the crisis lies in the very fact that others in our nation are not following traditional moral or spiritual norms. The anomaly of this crisis is that persons who are known to be very moral and spiritual are casting others who are also known to be moral and spiritual as immoral and unbelievers. On the one side conservative religious position sees the homosexual, the welfare mother, the marijuana smoker and the atheist as immoral. On the other side, the liberal sees the refusal on the part of the well to do to pay taxes and support the disadvantaged of society (a society whose doctrines and self-understanding rest on a notion of equal human dignity) as greed masking as moral self-righteousness.
Each side sees the only resolution of the crisis to be in reform and conversion , or in obedience to laws (which enforce particular version of morality). This gulf between the two groups says something about why simply calling it "moral and spiritual" doesn't get to the bottom of the matter. This back and forth is often vicious, or one would say "mean-spirited." Both the failure to find common ground on what is moral and the mean-spirited nature of the exchange strongly suggests that the crisis exists deeper within the human spirit, below what has commonly come to be regarded as moral or spiritual, (to discover which we might have to investigate again what it means to be moral and spiritual -at the level where we see the various sides to be "mean-spirited.")
Accepting this "human spirit" description of the crisis means that we cannot settle for simple descriptions of the crisis which provide either ready at hand or quick and easy solutions.
To say it is a crisis of the human spirit is to admit that it is not primarily of a political nature. Though there might be consequences in the political sphere, we will not resolve this crisis by treating it as a crisis of political leadership or of political structure. Political leadership, statesmanship, must be cultivated and it seems that the major parties are depleted in this regard as could be imagined. We will not resolve the situation by treating it as a crisis of party politics solved with a reform of old parties or introduction of a New Party.
We will not resolve it either by treating it as a crisis of Modern Liberal politics (the perspective of those who put Welfare and Affirmative Action are under sharp review.) Term limits, balanced budget amendments, election finance reform, welfare reform, Death penalties, affirmative action or progressive taxation will not resolve this crisis (if as we suggest it emanates from within the human spirit.)
We will not resolve it by treating it as a crisis of liberal structures, though surely traditional mechanisms like freedom of speech, (is flag burning speech? is hate speech protected?) and separation of Church and State are also under scrutiny.
Nor will we resolve it by treating it as a philosophical crisis of Liberal principles to be solved by deriving new formulations for equality and liberty.
Nor is it an economic crisis in the normal sense of a depression, or recession. The economy is running along quite nicely. It may be true that some individuals are getting run over and left behind by the economy, but that doesn't make for a crisis. The economic aspects of the crisis have to do with the growing disparity in personal economic circumstances, the corporate downsizing, the evaporation of secure employment. The passage of laws on full employment and fair wages or a progressive reduction of the huge disparities in wealth and income with redistribution, as essential as these elements may be to a solution, will not on their own resolve the crisis. We have merely redefined the economic problem as political and imposed a legislative solution.
The problem lies in the human spirit. To redistribute moneys in such a way as to cause resentment on one side and loss of self-respect on the other, or to give a person a job in such a way as to cause fellow employees to suspect his/her credentials and competence increases mistrust, really only exacerbate the problem of the human spirit, like bandaging unclean wounds and causing them to fester.
The descriptions of the crisis get closer to the heart of the matter when they speak of a "crisis of faith," not referring here to religious faith, but when used to refer either to the loss of political faith in institutions or to the diminishing trust in our fellow humans.
The reservoirs of trust may be in diminishing supply but I do not believe it is due to the lack of subjects worthy of our trust and faith. If one were to ask those who claim that most people can't be trusted (50%-60% of Americans depending on the poll) whether they believe they themselves were trustworthy and could be trusted, the answer would likely be an overwhelmingly yes. If each thinks himself trustworthy then untrustworthiness is not a categorical statement about human nature or the human condition.
Right now this lack of faith in institutions is expressed with reference to government institutions. The ethics committee inquiries reflect the lack of trust in the public institutions manned with elected officials. But there is just as much mistrust in the private sector in the economic realm -- between those who control and those who work for the corporations. We can't really say that our lack of trust is justified as there are no institutions worthy of our trust. Institutions are human constructs, they have no "nature" independent of how we shape and reshape them. Thus, they are not inherently untrustworthy and can be made to be trusted to the extent that trust is demanded of them. Changing institutions merely requires moral persistence.
Once we acknowledge that there is no reason why we shouldn't be trusting other individuals and institutions, all that is required to change the situation is a conscious effort on everyone's part to extend trust to other individuals and to shape our institutions to our own moral standards of trustworthiness. If we can't bring ourselves to undertake this conscious effort, it seems more accurate to describe the crisis in terms of a loss of capacity for trust and faith. This description of the situation fits with our idea that the problem has to do with the human spirit. To say that it is the capacity that is diminished is to say that something has been lost inside of each of us (or at least each of us who care about such things) at the level of the human spirit.
Related to the problem of trust is the charge that the crisis is due to the fact we are no longer a compassionate society, no longer exhibiting or feeling compassion and care for others. This is related to the diminished capacity to trust in others because if a person doesn't think others can be trusted, why should he or she feel compassion or care about them?
Again, it isn't that we lack subjects worthy of compassion, it seems to be a lack of capacity to be compassionate. Evidence for this lack of capacity is in how the children of the world are treated. Consider the levels of impoverishment and starvation around the world. Even if one can't feel compassion for unrepentant drunks or homeless ne'er do wells on the basis "they deserve it," can it be said the children starving or abandoned to the streets in the Third World do not merit compassion because they deserve their lot in life? (And we deserve ours?) One doesn't need to look to the Third World to find objects of compassion. It is not only the youth that have been ignored. The Rwandan genocide was observed with clinical detachment as good people around the world allowed concepts like national interest to be debated.
What about using the world's poor to produce underwear and running shoes as cheaply (and profitably) as possible? Meanwhile families are starving or barely surviving; young girls sold by their parents into prostitution (to get AIDs) to keep the family alive; girl babies killed because they are not productive.
Consider the youth of our own nation abandoned first by fathers or mothers, and then by the politicians who respond to the interest groups who show up at the polls, and finally by the nation itself when we look the other way as another generation of disadvantaged youth are consigned to a dismal future.
The crisis is that these sorts of activity can go on and so little in the way of an outpouring of support, let alone a moral outrage that would indicate that compassion is alive and well. Maybe some would say they "feel" compassion when they read, but is this compassion in any meaningful moral sense if the moral revulsion never rises to the level of meaningful action? When we reduce appeals for children's funds based on comparing the "sacrifice" to the cost of a cup of coffee are we selling a conscience too cheap?
We have perhaps left too much to experts to become compassion surrogates in feeling, thinking and acting what should be done. One needn't be an expert with a solution, or even think a solution is in the offing, (a solution may not even be possible, no one knows) in order to react with an active compassion -- "This just cannot happen anymore, and something has to be done about it."
The fact that this is too infrequently the reaction means I think that something serious has happened to the human spirit along with a decline in trust. It has to do with a diminished capacity to see persons as entitled to moral respect simply because they are persons just like us, worthy of trust and worthy of compassion. The inability to recognize that this incapacitation has occurred, is itself the cause for greatest alarm. We would immediately know and be alarmed if our eyesight or use of a limb became diminished, but the loss of a crucial moral faculty has seemingly gone unnoticed.
If one begins to lose the capacity to recognize the obvious cases where another human commands our moral attention, then one will lose the ability to see the less obvious, everyday, mundane situations where persons also command our moral attention. These mundane experiences are essential to the honing of the moral sensibilities and to the preservation of the capacity for trust and compassion and other moral feelings that knit the human community together. There is a moral feedback loop here. For if one does not practice this everyday with the persons with whom one comes in contact, than one cannot understand the moral importance of institutionalizing these moral traits. For example, if one doesn't feel compassion then how can one understand the importance of attempts to institutionalize compassion, e.g. in a welfare system or affirmative action? But it is not just the contributors to the programs who must recognize the program in the proper moral spirit. If the recipients don't exhibit a normal moral response, such as expressing gratitude for a society that recognizes their plight and acting in ways that would make them trustworthy on a personal level, e.g., no manipulation, no free riding etc., then they cannot see how much welfare institutions depend on trust. How can people trust in institutions unless they have a higher moral purpose? If moral purpose is not the focus mistrust and currencies evolve. If the institution only appeals and responds to my economic interest in return for my voter support, how can one know that the institution isn't responding to more well-healed interests for more substantial support. The bonds of a free society are ultimately moral. Compassion of the contributor and the trustworthiness of the recipients, no manipulation or free riding, are equal parts of the bargain. Everyone may not practice these moral sensibilities, but if the vast majority do not, the free society falls apart.
A Liberal Society needs human moral sensibilities to survive. The bonds that knit the Liberal society together are not imposed by decree. They originate within the individual human spirit and emerge therefrom in reaching out to others, not only in trust and compassion, but in exhibiting other common decencies, tolerance, consolation, gratitude, fairness, in treatment of others etc. Maintaining the bonds at the personal level is important to the liberal society. This is why a carefully developed moral sense is an indispensable tool for the proper evaluation of the collective principles, policies, and activities of free institutions.
How are people to shape institutions that they can trust in unless they know how to morally evaluate and criticize the activities of these institutions on moral grounds that they understand? Moral sensibilities are applied to the extent that individuals can grasp the moral purposes of institutions in personal terms and use them as a basis for evaluation. Questions like, "Is human dignity (both my dignity and the dignity of others) served?; Is my capacity for trust (and the capacity of those in other situations I can morally imagine) enhanced? Is my capacity for compassion (and the capacity of those in other situations) enlarged?". The focus of the individual ought to be on the answer to the question, "As a result of the activity, is the community, nation, world a better place, not only the human world but the natural world?" When subjected to these sorts of question and the personal moral focus they imply, institutions can begin to be shaped by moral criteria.
This is how we can create and hold institutions to account against our own moral standards. But first we need to activate our personal moral standards. Without a collective moral sense expressed both in our person to person exchanges and through our institutions, the Liberal society flounders. It becomes either totally regulated or devolves into a "managed anarchy" of residential security compounds and efficient prison systems. This personal moral sensibility is nurtured within the human spirit. Societal institutions have to provide the proper environment. If the institutions do not promote compassion or encourage trust then the personal moral development cannot take place.
It would seem that a resolution of the crisis depends on renewing moral sensibilities and giving shape and direction to the political discussion in a way that ensures that the best instincts of the human spirit are fully engaged in the process. Personal moral sensibilities are brought to the front in the evaluation of institutionalized activities and the institutions once established can continue to nurture, and refine, these same moral sensibilities in our daily, personal encounters.
Supposing that these reflections add to the discussion of the crisis that we face, is there something that can be done about nurturing moral sensibilities and recovering the capacity for trust and compassion and other common decencies?
There are many books and articles spawned by those who would retrieve the idea of individual virtue. They may be on the right track, but the impact I think is limited. They have a certain aura of conservative political agenda which is not really conducive to a broad national consensus. Furthermore, it is not clear how this personal virtue would be translated into institutional decision-making yielding a social morality.
My first thought is that a strong effort must be made to bring the categories of morality back into political discussion. By this I don't mean increasing the usage of terms like unethical and immoral, and I don't mean more Ethics committee investigations. I am talking about a public discussion of how ideas like trust, compassion, decency, graciousness, honesty, fairness, etc. are best implemented in collective and institutional ways.
By political discussion I do not have in mind more candidiates shouting matches, radio talk shows, "point- counterpoint" or "mock law school" staged media events replicating the artificial, adversarial exercise of a made for TV courtroom drama. This is where experts act as surrogates and everyone has a virtual experience of being involved.
In promoting moral political discussion, I am not advocating policy philosophers debating either among themselves in the think tanks or as a "expert witnesses" in the political process. The think tanks have too strong an intellectual connection to the political process and "system fixes" which the average person has lost faith in. There is too little connection to the individual human spirit.
Neither will the current crisis of the human spirit be resolved by moral surrogates debating with each other in the seminar rooms or in through the periodicals of the Academy. The academic strategy presumes that there is a broad distribution of received moral wisdom beyond the academic setting and the youth who have access to this learning will continue to nourish and hone their moral sensibilities and bring them to bear after they leave the Academy. But the world the graduates find now does not allow this. The space for introducing moral considerations in both business and government decision making has shrunken, and in many cases, disappeared.
This is not a criticism of our closest allies in resolving the crisis. That academic and policy professionals continue to inject moral principle into public debate is obviously of critical importance. This is a call to arms; an attempt to gain support for a grass roots undertaking which may be essential for the academic and policy efforts to bear fruit. Many of these debates are conducted in complex and special languages at the level of the head (over the heads of most) rather than at the level of heart or soul where the individual human spirit nurtures moral sensibilities. The debates fail to engage the moral beings whose participation is required if moral based policies are ever to work. For example. Human Rights will never be a serious commitment of U.S. foreign policy until a greater understanding of the important moral issues at stake is achieved. The people must be directly engaged.
Debates, dialogue, discussions between persons have to be encouraged. The discussions have to take place person to person because this is where the bonds that hold liberal society are forged. The kind of political discussion to be fostered depends on the respect for another person as a person. This sort of discussion would involve a real attempt to listen and to understand what another person has to say and to think about it before answering. This is not to say that each person's position is necessarily equal as in the saying "everyone is entitled to their own opinions." We are not talking about an opinions like whether the Indians are better than the Red Sox. Some moral opinions are just plain wrong headed. Often, one person's views are based on a better understanding of the moral facts. The willingness to concede to a better point of view is a part of respect for other persons, not seeing the concession as losing an argument -- a discussion is not zero sum game -- but as a gain for both sides in gaining consensus in truth.
So by political discussion I have in mind encouraging old fashioned "hot-stove" or "lunch counter" politics where two or three people gather to think through and hash out the political goings on. The political goings on that are hashed out person to person are not limited to the formal political processes. Political discussion is where we test moral views and evaluate the institutions and collective actions taken in our name. The discussions have to do with neighborhood politics, corporate politics, even bridge club politics, any situation where power is exercised by an individual in the name of a group.
I am not suggesting that the crisis is resolved by focusing only on this level of political debate. But from these human scale political experiences, persons develop the moral sensibilities that are involved in evaluating larger, more formal institutional practices. The need is to take these "hot stove" political discussions as a clue as to how people think about and and apply individual moral judgments to institutional actions and then to try and show the connections to the evaluation of larger institutional activities. This would be one means of connecting individual moral sensibilities to the most complex governmental actions. It would require some professional guidance form those experienced or schooled in the moral sciences.
This leads to a second thought. In order to regain control of the political discussion process, the discussion on moral matters ought to avoid the categories that the experts have prepared for us. A person to person level political discussion will never be based on the facts if we allow reality to be interpreted in the "sound bytized" ways that spin doctors, public relation or marketing firms have chosen to represent the facts of our common life. The discussion ought as far as possible to focus on getting straight on the "bare" facts, in our case those that command moral attention. For example, one needs only to hear such facts as hundreds of thousands being macheted in Rwanda, of barrio children in Sao Paulo being butchered as nuisances, of female babies are poisoned in Lahore, and of 13 year-olds prostituted to keep the family alive, to recognize that these are obvious situations calling for moral response. One doesn't have to go so far afield for examples of moral facts, the alarming levels of children living in poverty, of people without homes, and of inadequate health care hit very close to home. Discovering the proper moral description of these situations is essential to effective response.
There are groups in existence whose business it is to bring attention to moral catastrophes, on the international level, e.g., Amnesty International, Bread for the World, Human Rights Watch, and Save the Children, as well as the national level. The moral facts they present simply are not taking take hold. These organizations may operate to preserve some minimum moral standard. But they do not seem able to either provoke the moral response that the situations demand or to generate the discussions necessary for broad support for solutions which attack the root causes of these situations. Their appeals are couched in terms of minimal sacrifice, e.g., "for the cost of a cup of coffee per day you can save a child's life .." etc. Does this speak to the current situation? Possibly we are reduced to this use of moral facts because the capacity for moral response is so infrequently practiced in daily life, the moral sensibilities of the audience are so dulled through disuse, and the human spirit is so diminished.
Another type of effort is needed. These moral facts must be brought out not with the particular purpose of raising money to keep people alive, as crucial as that is, but with a general purpose of renewing moral sensibilities, of encouraging moral dialogue, and of recharging the human spirit. This is done by helping persons attain a better understanding, first, of the facts in the context of how each person is connected to these situations, and, second, of what a morally sensible person might think and do about the situations. This step also requires some professional involvement from those in the moral sciences.
These two steps, recapturing control and returning political debate to the level of person to person moral political dialogue, and the uncovering of the facts in a way that command moral attention and response, may sound good but how is this to be brought off. The effort is not likely to lead to anything unless . A most important step remains.
We must address the growing disparity in societal knowledge, the disparity in moral knowledge as it relates to political and economic affairs. One of the most important goods of the Liberal Society is the knowledge necessary to evaluate effectively the moral content of the complex political and economic activities (as well as the intentions and dispositions of the agents of those activities) and right now this good is concentrated in the hands of a few.
An important component in resolving the crisis lies in encouraging persons in the moral sciences to focus on reducing this disparity in moral knowledge. We usually don't think of moral knowledge as a limited commodity, subject to the critique implied in the use of terms like "concentrated" and "disparity." In a situation of crisis where moral sensibilities are wanting and the capacity for trust and compassion is diminishing, the responsible thing for those in the moral sciences to do is not to create more knowledge but to focus on distributing the moral knowledge that exists.
As we have argued, the Liberal society rests on moral sensibilities and persons making individual moral judgments about collective activities. If persons fail to exercise this role the society begins to founder.
One way to get people involved in moral judgments and playing this critical role is to generate a moral dialogue guided by people from the moral sciences who do not have a particular political ideology or a "systems fix" agenda. But a way must be developed for such people to take responsibility for distributing the good that is now concentrated in their hands.
One cannot assume that people desire moral knowledge and will work to obtain it. Not everyone will see the moral knowledge that arises from such an inquiry as an important good to be pursued. People do not think that they need a fancy car until someone "markets" it to them. Part of the effort then lies is educational marketing.
So how is this to be brought off? The new technology offers a communication medium uniquely suited to the needs of resolving the crisis. It can be used conduct political discussion, to convey a full account of the moral facts, to leverage the time and broadly distribute the knowledge of the moral science professionals and, finally, to begin "market" the good to a recalcitrant audience. Unlike radio or TV, the devices of communication technology also offer a unique means of "connected communication," of a true dialogue, where one side is able to say something and the other to answer back.
A dialogue would make possible a true "dialectical" process, an old fashioned term for describing how learning takes place when two people "teach" each other, or when two sides are considered. Dialogue and dialectic are how real moral learning would occur. For those with knowledge in moral science have something to learn as well. The knowledge of moral theory which is concentrated is a knowledge of the technical terms of moral analysis and moral discussion; the knowledge, or one might say the intuition or sense, of right and wrong, good and bad, fair and just, is universal. The moral science professionals have no extra capability for understanding human dignity, trust, compassion, magnanimity, fairness, decency, etc. The professionals only have suggestions for getting clear on these moral criteria and how they might be best expressed in moral evaluation political and economic activities.
This is not a once and for all, final answer to the crisis. There might even be more disagreement on particular actions when moral analysis of political activities is increased. Social tensions could also increase. People might question whether it is good to encourage moral debate on political matters. It may seem easier and less messy to conduct on the level of constituent interests and national interest. But this is corrosive to the human spirit and the moral sensibilitites that we need to keep a free society alive. The disadvantages of a moral dialogue process are far outweighed by the benefits -- in awakening the human spirit, in sharpening the moral sensibilities, in increasing the capacity for moral response on the personal as well as the political level, in creating a space in the political discussion for moral deliberation and, most important, in reestablishing the grounds necessary for the Liberal Society.
Moral purposes may not always be the primary consideration in political action. Actions on behalf of the general good may at times have to be based on non-moral "expediency" and "pragmatic" reasons. But such concessions to immediate circumstance would be viewed as exceptions, and not as evidence that the moral evaluation of political and economic activities is not essential.
The strength of a Liberal Society is that it doesn't rest on ideology or a party line where people have to rely on intellectuals, policy experts and demagogues to set moral directions in organizing and directing political activity. This is also its weakness. The Liberal society relies on the best instincts of the human spirit, on moral sensibilities and on persons making individual moral judgments about collective activities. When persons fail to fill this role the society begins to founder. This is the situation we now find ourselves in.
To say that the national crisis that we are experiencing can be traced back to a problem in the individual human spirit may be disappointing to many of those who are most concerned about the crisis. There is the assumption that such a large problem must necessarily have an equally large solution. As a result, the hunt for solutions among the moral science professionals is at the macro level, a sweeping "system" fix, a new welfare plan, a new budget amendment, a new tax policy. Ultimately, political initiatives may be important parts of the resolution of the crisis. However, the problems of diminished capacity for moral expression, of dulled moral sensibilities and of the hardening of the human spirit, must first be addressed at the person level. System fixes will lack moral legitimacy and have difficulty taking hold in our society unless the effort begins with an attempt to reinstill a moral sensibilility that would serve in evaluating political activities.
There is also likely to be scepticism and impatience regarding the proposed solutions. That the effort should be focused on initiating a moral dialogue aimed at the widest possible audience seems an improbable route. It looks difficult to get started, and a tedious and time consuming process even if a start is made. Broad based communication to the people is for the radio or TV talk show hosts, mostly superficial and mostly entertainment. Who would dial up a World Wide Web site on moral/political matters? There is no guarantee that anyone would, but there is a sense that the crisis has bred widespread anxiety and more people will be looking for substance. And even if the prospects for attracting a large audience is small, for the people concerned that the crisis is ultimately moral in nature, something substantive must be tried. And where to start? Since the bonds of Liberal Society are based on a moral consensus forged at the person to person level, if the bonds are to be reforged, it seems a matter of common sense that the effort would begin at the level of persons.
IATH WWW Server 
Center's Home 
New Dialogue Main Page