Critics argue that liberal society has abandoned traditional values such as religiosity, family, and community, leading to a decline in social cohesion and moral framework. Individualism has led to an increase in narcissism and self-interest, crowding out empathy and concern for the common good.
Liberals respond in kind, calling conservatives authoritarians who threaten democracy, and so on. Both sides are predictable. Moralisms turn arguments into witch hunts. Debates are scolds looking for headlines. By contrast, Joe Rogan almost exemplifies a thoughtful exchange of ideas.
I would never have thought of this but for the Moral Courage College and its fresh approach to controversy. Rogan has gained a massive audience for his long-form podcast interviews. He is called one of the most listened-to media personalities on the planet. Rogan can be dogmatic and obnoxious—but with a difference: He interviews people from various fields and with different viewpoints, not just focusing on traditional newsmakers, and is often willing to acknowledge that he could be wrong. Rogan was a staunch anti-vaxxer during the Covid crisis. Still, mid-interview and on air, he fact-checked himself and admitted he was mistaken. The debate turned into a productive discussion.
Many pre-modern Western legal traditions applied principles with considerable foresight, discretion, and attention to specific circumstances. Aristotle's concept of "phronesis" (practical wisdom) exemplified an influential approach for centuries in these traditions. Legal rules were "thick"—rich in context, deeply rooted in culture and tradition, and nuanced in their application. Many cases, particularly in the natural law tradition, understood these rules as grounded in a moral order inherent in the universe. [*]
With the disruption of the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century, rules became "thin," abstract, and universal, detached from their cultural and traditional contexts. Life became less a mystery to respect than a problem to regulate.
A historian of science today says, "Laws are rules with a telescope, far-seeing and aiming high; regulations are rules with a microscope, myopic and focused on detail." The overabundance of regulations in daily life favors one-size-fits-all control; instead of promoting and protecting moral values, rules can replace them.
Aristotle's concept of practical wisdom parallels the approach taken in handling religious tradition. Scriptures, such as the Bible, derive their contemporary meaning and relevance from centuries of debate and interpretation. In Judaism, this includes midrash, the Talmud, and the oral Torah. Christianity engages in various forms of Biblical scholarship and exegesis. Rich commentarial traditions across all world religions continually reexamine and reinterpret sacred texts in light of changing contexts and new insights. (Take note, fundamentalists and constitutional “originalists”! )
Today's headline issues are like plants that, when severed from their roots, wither, weaken, and ultimately die. They grab attention and stir emotion, but disconnected from core values and principles, they are "thin" and unproductive, further dividing the public.
For instance, debates around immigration policy acknowledge the thick values of economic opportunity and national identity yet primarily focus on border control procedures. Arguments on abortion often focus on legal technicalities and medical procedures, becoming mired in political rhetoric that caricatures the dignity of life. While thicker arguments may not result in a resolution, they can promote a more thoughtful public discourse that avoids demonizing and condemning differences.
A theologian renowned for his erudition and wit said of an eminent scientist that he was “gaily ignorant of how frequently he was reducing complex issues to cartoons of themselves.” We are all prone to “moments of egotism and self-deception,” the scholar admits. Yet when such tendencies trivialize matters of significance, one might rightfully say, “Enough!”
"In attempting to convert an adversary to one's side or entice a skeptic to join one's cause, it is best not to pause with a certain predictable regularity to inform him that you see him as a ridiculous simpleton or a heartless savage. It might be regarded as rude, you see, something with which he appears to have been unacquainted."
Rude is the new normal. Thin is the new thick, as debate fights for the spotlight. This has become tiresome. It represents a new chance to learn from the past, not just because it’s a good idea, but because it's helpful. An adage has it, "When the student is ready, the teacher will come." Aristotle, with practical wisdom, could restore common sense.
[*] The diversity of legal systems across cultures and periods means this description does not universally apply to all “earlier” laws.
Notes and reading
"Rules are not sacred; principles are." - Nelson Mandela quoted in Mandela's Way: Lessons on Life by Richard Stengel (2010)—twelve lessons on life and leadership.
Moral Courage College - founder Irshad Manji is a celebrated author, educator, and advocate known for teaching people worldwide to engage productively on polarizing issues.
Performing Phronesis - Steve Schwarze, Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 32 (1999), 78-95. JSTOR. Schwarze was a professor in Communication Studies (University of Montana).
The Fragility of Goodness - Martha Nussbaum (2001), chapter 10. Nussbaum is internationally renowned for her work in Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, feminist philosophy, and political philosophy.
Politics: A New Translation - comprehensive introduction and detailed notes by C. D. C. Reeve (2013), Books II and III. Reeve is a philosophy professor at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill).
“Laws are rules with a telescope…” in Rules: A Short History of What We Live By - Lorraine Daston (2023). Daston is an American historian of science and visiting professor in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago.
Theologian renowned for his erudition and wit… - David Bentley Hart, “Leaves in the Wind” (Substack - July 1, 2023). Hart is a philosopher, scholar of religion, writer, and cultural commentator, and presently a collaborative researcher at Notre Dame. His latest book, just released, is All Things Are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life. The scientist mentioned is evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson and the work in question is Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1999). Hart respects Wilson’s contribution to interdisciplinary dialogue but criticizes him for a reductionist approach to human experience and culture.
About 2 + 2 = 5: https://williamgreen.substack.com/about - revised
That's a great quote from the historian: "Laws are rules with a telescope, far-seeing and aiming high; regulations are rules with a microscope, myopic and focused on detail." A good law aims high and connects with a "thick" polity. Breaking these good laws hurts us all because breaking them thins the polity. I think this sense of the damage to a community was better understood by many Native American tribes, which would hold a hearing to find out how the community and its customs had contributed to someone breaking a law. Participants at such hearings may have understood Chesterton's adage better than we: "When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.” You get regulations, and you focus on detail. You lose some freedom.
I like how Professor James Stoner helps us bureaucratically oriented readers with the common-law mindset of Edward Coke: ". . . Coke does not see law as so mechanical or bureaucratic a force as do we. The prudence of the judge is not the same as the rule-mindedness of the bureaucrat; it is at once freer and more responsible, for it is the judgment of a living mind, not the mandate of an impersonal rule-book" (Stoner, Common Law and Liberal Theory, 29). Stoner hastens to add that this judicial "living mind" is awash in the "artificial reason" of the English common law.
Stoner explores what he calls a "common law way of thinking about politics." You might like his reference to Aristotle as he connects politics with what he would like to see of a polity's common-law (thick) mindset: "The common law approach to politics involves the citizen or legislator conceiving his task as judge or advocate within a legal frame . . . The common law proceeds by reason, but by reason that collects and judges particulars--by a sort of Aristotelian practical reason--rather than by reason in the modern, Enlightenment, analytical sense--the reason that breaks apart and reassembles. It stresses continuity rather than novelty, though it demands some reason greater than custom alone, for by common law, unreasonable customs have no legal force" (177).
"Life became less a mystery to respect than a problem to regulate." Yes. Regulation involves a kind of breaking apart and reassembling. Mystery, like thickness, can be the result of continuity.