In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

c h ap t e r 9 Democracy, Ethics, Religion: An Intrinsic Connection During his many years of professional life as a political philosopher, Francis Canavan has worked consistently to articulate and pass on the great tradition of humanistic political philosophy, grounded in a solid philosophical anthropology, but critically rethought and adapted to our American culture and democratic way of life—a political philosophy that tries to work out a harmonious balance between individual and community, individual rights and the exigencies of the common good. I would like to add my support to his impressive work by this modest reflection on the role played by two important pieces in this synthesis, which seem to me to have an intrinsic, but often overlooked, connection with the long-term viability of our democratic way of life. By this I mean the intrinsic connection between democracy and a normative code of ethics, the latter supported by some religious belief system. The dominant political thinking in America today is strongly, almost obsessively, committed to the ideal of separation of church and state. I think the ideal is a good one in itself and has served this country well for a long time. But there is more to it than that. On the one hand, it is certainly wise for the church not to control the state and for the state not to control the church or favor one church over another. On the other hand, it may well be that there is some intrinsic connection between the political health of a democracy and the vital functioning in it of some code of normative ethics supported by some form or forms of religious belief First published in A Moral Enterprise: Politics, Reason, and the Human Good: Essays in Honor of Francis Canavan, ed. Kenneth L. Grasso and Robert P. Hunt (Wilmington , DE: ISI Books, 2002), 265–73. 109 110 Democracy, Ethics, Religion that lends the code its normative authority. This connection would have both civic and transcendent dimensions. First, at the civic level, there would be a connection between democracy and some normative ethical code held and practiced by the majority of its citizens. Second, this civic creed or code would be grounded in, and supported by, some transcendent form of religious belief, and would be subscribed to by a significant majority of the society’s citizens. This does not have to be any one form of religion, just some form, or a plurality of forms, which support some similar code of normative ethical conduct. I also wish to stress that the connection mentioned above is not based on some religious belief or postulate, but is the result simply of an analysis of the nature of the democratic political order as such, combined with thoughtful reflection on the actual history of political societies—democracies in particular—in the West. I am much influenced in coming to this conclusion by the writings of Pierre Manent and his school of French Catholic political philosophers.1 I am really presenting here what are to me some especially significant conclusions inspired by their work. Democracy and Normative Ethics My thesis first requires me to connect the long-term healthy exercise of the democratic way of life with the need for a normative code of ethics. The point is this: In order for a democracy to work in practice in a sustainable way, a significant majority of its citizens must accept and follow in practice some normative code of ethics. If they do not, what will result is a chaos of conflicting individual or group self-interests without respect for the rights of others; and to protect these rights there will have to be a very large police force, perhaps one for every few citizens—in other words, the equivalent of a police state. A police state can indeed survive in a totalitarian or authoritarian state for a time at least, but not in an authentic working democracy, governed by the publicly expressed will of the majority. There is no use replying that the majority of sensible, clear-thinking people will realize that it serves their own good to compromise on individual desires in order to achieve certain essential common goods. If they follow no normative ethical code, they will not have enough self-discipline to display practical wisdom and act according to the virtue of prudence. Only if a significant majority of the citizens conform most of their actions to some...

Share