Paper Example - The Communitarianism View of Liberalism

People are not only different through appearances and cultures but through character and way of thinking. Varying thoughts drive variability in people's conduct. Some people prefer being autonomous in living under communal binds because they believe in independence and having full autonomy in their lives. The behavior of such individuals cannot be the same as people who believe that togetherness is the way to live. The mantra of together as one stems from the fusion of individual goals to form one vision. Sandel (1992) explained that people's communities define them, hence affected and bound by community characteristics in terms of purposes and ends. Communitarianism claims that liberalism separates a person from their values and understanding of good, failing to explain the correspondence between individuals and their relationships with their principles and ethics (Mulhall & Swift, 1996). Communitarians view liberalists as selfish and egocentric because liberalism emphasizes on benefiting individuals rather than the majority.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

What Do Communitarians Think Is Wrong with Liberalism?

Personal Gain over Responsibility

When looking at each side separately, it would seem that both philosophies are justified; however, from a neutral point, the liberalism philosophy comes off as narcissistic. Communitarians believe that liberalism cannot stand the test of time considering the change in politics and social standing brought about by the fusion of the world into a single village. The controversy of marijuana use and trade is one way to explain why liberalism does not the world's political context as opposed to communitarianism. Everyone is aware that marijuana is one of the many abused substances around the globe, especially by the youth. However, liberalism in such a case would demand and support the use of marijuana-based on the standing of pleasing oneself. A communitarian would be against marijuana legalisation not because they do not care about individual rights but because they have a bigger picture in mind, which is society. A community is more significant than an individual because it defines one's critical links, be it economic, political, or social.

Communitarians believe it is not right to consider oneself independent in a manner of detachment from one's attachments and goals (Sandel, 1992). The role one holds in society constitutes of the person one is, as a country's citizen, partisan's cause, or movement member (Sandel, 1992). When it comes to morality, communitarians, unlike liberals, would be more inclined to permit the ban of pornographic vessels such as bookstores because the act of pornography is offensive in terms of values and way of life (Sandel 1992). A liberal would take pride in defence of pornography simply because they oppose it and is unpopular (Sandel, 1992). Liberals believe that a country should not have to force a particular way of life; instead, it should let its citizens freedom of choosing their outcomes and values (Sandel, 1992). The liberals are wrong in thought to leave citizens to their freedom of choosing values because people are not the same, and some will stumble upon their fantasies, forgetting their communal roles and responsibilities.

Blind Faith

Liberals perhaps do not believe in people's freedom as they insist and instead hold the commitment to freedom dear to them as a means of defiance. Sandel (1992) explained that the liberals' commitment to freedom of choice tasks them with the constant distinction of praise and permission, where they cannot decide whether to condone a practice or fully endorse. Sandel (1992) further explained that the liberals might allow pornography in terms of permitting citizens to exercise their rights; however, they may not believe in its values and hence cannot affirm its existence. From a communitarian point of view, the act of liberals permitting what they do not believe in is a sense of hypocrisy, the kind that misleads people.

For instance, in the case of marijuana usage, a liberal might find it attractive to allow citizens to exercise their right to utilise the substance, with the knowledge that no good comes out of abusing marijuana. In this light, liberalism misleads and entire society into thinking that marijuana is their right because it is good for them. The reality is that marijuana abuse can cripple a society, and citizens will only be aware of it with the adverse outcomes. Although citizens deserve to uphold their rights, it is detrimental that truth prevails about the cost of such rights on their relationship with society. It is not enough to allow people to smoke in a factory without demonstrating the magnitude of its consequences. Blind faith is what the liberals practice since they ignore the aftermath of citizens exercising their rights while forgetting their roots. The lack of honesty ensuing in liberals' minds while encouraging people to fight for their rights concerns the many reasons why the communitarians believe liberalism is a wrong concept.

Immorality

The argument of liberalism holds that the philosophy of the common good implies intolerance and prejudice, considering the forced traditions, loyalties, and obligations involved (Sandel, 1992). From a communitarian view, the root cause of bias is the dislocation of life forms, unsettled roots, and undone traditions (Sandel, 1992). The liberal way of living suggests that it is okay to forego one's roots and practices to the extent of breaking off the societal bonds that are the glue to certain life forms, all for the love of one's rights. According to Bell (2005), communitarians hold the argument that liberalism neglects the fact that people are the world's agents by choice of nature. Bell (2005 explained that the governance of human lives depends upon unchosen background habits and routines, a concept that is far from acting autonomously in realising one's life-plan. Bell (2005) further explained that most of the time, individuals act per their social background in all aspects, for instance, walking, dressing, speaking, or playing without the thoughts of individual goals and choices. According to Bell (2005), it is only at the time of destruction would one thinks of themselves as survival instincts kick in, formulating plans to deal with the breakdown.

The societal or communal setting, according to Bell (2005), provides normalcy that keeps people at bay from the worries of having to choose a path, formulate and execute personal goals while accepting the responsibility of their actions. The community way of living provides a shade where everything is taken care of, responsibility burdens shared, functions articulated in the name of a shared vision and common good. One can define such a society as a peaceful mode of living. Liberalism, although it stands for freedom, only creates turmoil since people have to continually be on their toes for their survival, all in the name of attaining a desired goal. Different individuals with a variety of interests and goals make a society that is full of viciousness as people attempt to make life better for themselves, disregarding the common good for society. In such an environment, people become narcissistic, selfish, and immoral as the scramble for resources intensify.

The Concept of Choice

Communitarians cast doubt on the liberal view, which asserts that choice is essential of value (Bell, 2005). Liberalism presumes that a particular moral standard or societal attachment can only be more valuable because of an individual chooses it after deliberating amongst many alternatives (Bell, 2005). The concept of choosing demands a high-order interest where one picks their life-plans and significant projects; however, regardless of choice, the assumption stands that the left out projects and attachment as faulty (Bell, 2005). Such a concept, although emanating from the liberals, is challenging for the philosophy of liberalism because one cannot cast away some attachments considering their fundamental nature (Bell, 2005). While attempting to get rid of such affections, serious consequences may follow, such as psychological damage (Bell, 2005). Such a challenge is a blow to liberalism, according to Bell (2005), because for communitarians, it is easy to find an attachment that the identity of an individual cannot reject or revise as a counter to the liberal thoughts. According to Bell (2005), a psychoanalyst could argue that the bond between mother and child is such an attachment that poses a threat to liberal thinking, for casting it away would only cause unintended and adverse consequences.

Life Interests

The liberal view of individual independence demands that one follows their life-interests away from the communal attachment; however, the communitarians believe that the most vital interest for any individual is having a decent life and sustained well-being (Bell, 2005). The promotion of well –being and life decency is, according to communitarians, a product of communal attachment (Bell, 2005). The communitarians believe that both political sides, i.e., left and right, are at fault for the current illness of according to one's life interests more importance instead of shared goals (Bell, 2005). The political left, for instance, as Bell (2005) described, is to blame for giving welfare rights, a push in challenging times where the economy is unstainable, slow growth prevails, and most populations are ageing. Communitarians also view the political left as wrong in terms of power shift from local and democratic structures to bureaucratic and centralised institutions (Bell, 2005). Such a situation leads to a growing element of political alienation and powerlessness as the democratic system capable of administering equal and fair benefits distribution no longer exists (Bell, 2005).

What Makes Communitarianism, Right?

The communitarians are right to criticise the liberals for asserting an individual's right over the benefits of all humanity. It is not because the majority rules or is always right that the argument of communitarians holds more weight, but because life demands the existence of linkages for survival purposes. Bell (2005) explained that the Soviet bloc collapsed due to a moment of liberal euphoria and hence brought along a critical evaluation of the challenges of liberal practice implementation out of the Western side of the globe. Bell (2005) indicated that the liberal system is not fit for the world, especially in the developing states, because pervasiveness afflicts the consolidation and establishment of democratic liberal political settings. Bell (2005) explained that some adverse circumstances pose a threat to the success of these liberal setups, including poverty, corruption, ethnic war, and degradation of the environment. The liberals assume that any rational human being would want a liberal democracy hence disregard such challenges as temporary afflictions (Bell, 2005). Although the liberals are optimistic, the truth of the matter remains that people would rather live peacefully without war, work towards eradicating poverty and guard the environment for only then can they survive. The peace, environment maintenance, and poverty eradication can only happen with the concept of togetherness. A communal setting and attachment give individuals hope and the urge to promote tranquillity in each other's' lives. A liberal setting only brings along greed, jealousy, and hostility, all in the name of chasing one's interest. Survival of all humankind surpasses survival for the fittest, and hence the communitarian philosophy stands above the liberal school of thought.