Political Philosophy

Review: Learning to Be Fair

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "Learning to Be Fair" by Charles McNamara.

Learning to Be Fair, Charles McNamara. Fortress Press (ISBN: 9781506495095) 2024.

Summary: The ancient origins of the idea of equity in western moral philosophy and the historical development of the concept.

The word “equity” has become part of the contentious triad of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” As such, the concern for equity is deemed modern and “woke.” Hopefully one error the reader will not make after reading this book is to consider equity a newfangled notion. In Learning to Be Fair, Charles McNamara demonstrates that the concept of “equity” goes back at least two millennia to the Greeks. He also shows the contested character of the concept goes back to its origins.

He begins with the Greeks and how Aristotle differed from Socrates on the matter of what constitutes justice. Whereas Socrates treated it as an immutable absolute, Aristotle introduced the idea of epieikeia, from which our word equity comes via the Latin aequitas. Aristotle believed in adapting law to actual events and concrete situations.

He then turns to the Romans, and the relationship of equity to equality, reflected in tensions between democracy and aristocracy and ambiguity around questions of merit. The questions we struggle with in our own day are not new.

From here, McNamara turns to the idea of equity in English legal tradition. Not only were there courts of law but also courts of equity, or chancery courts. For example, he traces Thomas Hobbes’ concept of distributive justice, implemented through courts of equity. The term even makes it into Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

But this hardly settles its meaning. McNamara observes that two species of equity persist and are in conflict in our culture. One is “equity of the exception.” Here law is applied, taking into consideration concrete and specific circumstances. Then there is the “equity of the norm,” which seeks to treat all alike. Yet we often fail to do this for particular groups, hence the tension between the two species.

McNamara concludes the book noting the tension and vagueness around the term equity throughout history. Instead of the binary defined by the positions of Socrates and Aristotle, he commends the approach of Isocrates who treats equity as a poietikon pragma, a creative activity. Rather than equity being something “known,” he treats it as something “made,” in which equity is defined by us in our political processes.

That seems to me to be vague as well and capable of abuse. It requires the robust guardrails of democratic institutions with a balance of power. My own sense is that Isocrates holds together the “both-and” of the inherent tensions in equity. Rather than absolutism or utter relativism, good politics is creative in fashioning proximal, common good approximations of equity that meet the situation yet adhere to the rule of law. What this presumes is recognizing that political opponents need each other, which sadly does not seem to be the modus operandi at present.

However, what McNamara does offer is a challenge to the idea that equity reflects a contemporary “woke” progressivism. Rather, from the Greeks onward, equity, with all its challenges, is part of just governing, crucial to the functioning of a civil society. At the same time, he helps us understand why equity has been so contentious. And he gestures toward a politics that creatively negotiates that tension.

___________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Thanks for visiting Bob on Books.  I appreciate that you spent time here. Feel to “look around” – see the tabs at the top of the website, and the right hand column. And use the buttons below to share this post. Blessings! [Adapted from Enough Light, a blog I follow.]

Review: True Conservatism

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "True Conservatism" by Anthony T. Kronman

True Conservatism, Anthony T. Kronman. Yale University Press (ISBN: 9780300277036) 2025.

Summary: A call to a humane conservatism that embraces enlightenment ideals without enlightenment prejudices or oversimplification.

Anthony T. Kronman, like many of us, decries the stridency of the left and the reactionary character of modern conservatives. In this book, Kronman makes the argument that true conservatism embraces ideals both have in common without their prejudices. In his preface, he writes:

“A truer conservatism is needed to remind us of the worth of custom and inheritance; the splendor of what is excellent and rare; the expansive solidarity of our friendship for the dead; and the dignity, indeed necessity, of the human longing for connection to the eternal and divine–and to persuade us that these timeless goods are compatible with the modern ideals of liberty, toleration, and reasoned argument.”

Kronman begins by arguing that three prejudices hinder our full embrace of a true conservatism. The first of these is that we make equality the highest value at the expense of excellence and beauty. The second is that we treat the past as a storehouse to which we turn only as needed. Third is a prejudice against belief in God’s existence. Thus we treat it at best a matter of private opinion, which fails to reckon with the basic human longing for eternity.

With regard to equality, he describes “bullied pulpits” from which the egalitarian absolutism denigrates excellence as a cover for power and beauty as a distraction from oppression. Hence, Kronman argues for the sovereignty of excellence. He notes how Christianity tempers excellence with charity and humility.

Kronman invokes Machiavelli, Burke and other past “greats” to urge the value of friendship with the dead. They are models, not monuments. Therefore, we assess both their greatness and flaws, learning from both. We are their friends, not their hagiographers or sycophants. In the following chapter, he applies a similar rubric to our relationship with the character of our country.

Chapter six addresses the perennial tension of the enlightenment ideals of The Declaration of Independence and the tempering, conservative character of The Constitution. He observes Abraham Lincoln’s metaphor of golden apples in a silver frame. Then, he highlights Alexander Bickel’s book, The Least Dangerous Branch. Specifically, he highlights the built-in dynamic of delay in the Constitution, and in the adjudication of constitutional questions.

In chapter seven, Kronman turns to religion, and in the end, affirms Jefferson’s wisdom in both protecting religious liberty for all, while keeping religion out of politics. Then, chapters 8 and 9 explore reason and religion with Kronman proposing Spinoza as the one who reconciles Hume and Kant. As well, he commends the modesty, the caution of Spinoza’s ethics.

Anthony Kronman teaches a version of Great Books with students at Yale. Thus, his deep immersion in these great thinkers is evident throughout the book. He argues that the enlightenment values of equality, reason, and toleration must be tempered by our value of excellence, beauty, friendship with the past, and the importance of the Transcendent. He makes clear that contemporary conservatism falls short of these values.

However, I think he fails to reckon with a politics of power that is neither progressive nor conservative and has no regard for any of the ideals Kronman affirms. Finally, I wonder how Kronman would have us live in such times and how his conservative philosophy helps him live through these times. That would be an interesting conversation!