IS COMMUNITARIAN THINKING ALTRUISTIC?

Abstract

1. Introduction It is a common belief among contemporary ethicists that community-oriented, or communitarian, thinking is more naturally altruistic than its rivals--especially most common strands of thought. The idea is, roughly, that liberals emphasise significance of individuals, and are therefore likely to stress personal, egoistic concerns, while communitarians call attention to groups and societies, and are hence more amenable to ideas of social or communal dependence and mutual help. Our aim in this paper is to examine whether or not this belief is justified and, if it is, in what sense. Since communitarian thinking comes in a variety of packages, we shall start by briefly defining what we mean by it in our considerations. Because altruism, too, can mean different things in different contexts, we shall also quickly outline two main senses in which we talk about it. After these preliminaries, our examination will proceed in two stages. The first is to show that communitarian thinking, as such, is not necessarily altruistic, or at least that there is no conceptual reason to hold that it is. The second is to further demonstrate that, even in comparison, communitarian thinking is not necessarily more altruistic than main versions of individual-based, or liberal thought. If both our arguments are valid, then community-oriented ideologies and policies cannot, without strict specifications, be supported by claiming that they are altruistic, or more altruistic than their rivals. This does not, of course, show that there is anything wrong with these ideologies or policies. Egoism may be a better alternative than altruism. And some forms of communitarianism may well be more altruistic than some forms of liberalism. But if we are right, a stock defence of community-based ethics in terms of is unfounded. 2. Philosophical and political communitarianism For purposes of our analysis, it is useful to make distinction between philosophical and political versions of communitarianism. Communitarian thinking in its contemporary philosophical form was originally a reaction to John Rawls's contractarian political doctrine in his influential book A Theory of Justice (1972). Alasdair MacIntyre (1981), Michael Sandel (1981), Charles Taylor (1985), and Michael Walzer (1983) all questioned some liberal tenets that Rawls held, and although they did not label themselves as communitarian, their work gave rise to philosophical movement of communitarianism. Within this movement, it is generally held that liberalism is based on a skewed notion of human personhood; an over-emphasis of individuality; and an impossible commitment to universality and neutrality. The communitarian alternatives to these are a notion of human persons and selves as socially constructed entities; a view of communities as important sources of value; and a conviction that traditions should play a considerable part in moral and political reasoning. (1) Communitarianism in its recent political form is a more complex phenomenon. As presented by one of its main champions, Amitai Etzioni, it is an attempt to restore moral order and to consolidate common goals with individual self-interest by emphasising traditional concepts of education, family, and values (Etzioni 1995, 1997, cf. Frazer 1999, Putnam 2000). (2) Whatever moral and political strengths or weaknesses of this doctrine, which has some links with Third Way Socialism of Anthony Giddens and Tony Blair in United Kingdom, philosophical assessment of within it is very difficult (Giddens 1998). Etzioni seems to dislike term altruism in first place, and he asserts that the pursuit of self-interest can be balanced by a commitment to community, without requiring us to lead a life of austerity, altruism, or self-sacrifice (Giddens 1985). In Giddens and Blair, it is not too easy to see if in sense of caring for others is a means to a thriving communal life, or communal life a means to increasing altruism. …