Whenever I teach workshops on ethics, one of the ethical values that receives the greatest skepticism is civic duty. To what extent do we owe certain behavior to the community at large?
Many individuals who quickly embrace values such as honesty and fairness balk at the civic duty one, possibly out of fear that it could be misused by a dictatorship. Even when I note that the ethical value of civic duty would apply solely to representative democracies, there is still a reluctance.
As discussion moves into just what civic duty might mean in terms of individual behavior, the activities that come up are:
Voting;
Serving on juries;
Protecting the environment;
Testifying truthfully in court;
Paying your taxes;
Participating in community affairs;
Not speeding;
Not littering;
Serving in the military or in another form of national service such as the Peace Corps;
Obeying the law; and
Working to change unjust laws.
The extent of a civic duty is an interesting question in many ways; certainly one that can inspire some reflection on just what is involved in being a good citizen and whether citizenship should mean more than simply residing within certain political boundaries.
How would JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you" inaugural address be received today? Would it still resonate or have more of us become the equivalent of civic free-lancers?
"President Kennedy said, 'Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.'... Neither half of that statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. 'What your country can do for you' implies that the government is the patron, the citizen the ward. 'What you can do for your country' assumes that the government is the master, the citizen the servant."
ReplyDelete- Milton Friedman
Pawnking,
ReplyDeleteAs much as I admire Milton Friedman, I think he's off the mark a bit on this one. President Kennedy was reminding us that there are times when we indeed owe the government our service. The government is both a patron and a servant. The Founders of the United States were very sensitive to that dual role. They knew that the Articles of Confederation had set forth too weak a government and so by writing the Constitution they sought both to create a stronger government and then protect the people from that government. [I'm glad you posted Friedman's words because of an additional reason: They can inspire us to wonder about the patron role and a related issue: What is the danger of a government that oppresses not by fear but by kindness and debilitates by fostering dependency? But I'm getting off-track.] Thanks for the quote!