Urban communities and virtue pt 1

Over at a site called The Public Discourse, a philosopher named Raymond Hain has an argument bout how the new urbanism creates communities that will promote virtue better than the ones we currently live in do.

It's an odd argument he makes. Like a lot of philosophical arguments it comes across as abstract and, as Wittgenstein put it, not businesslike. By the latter, I mean it is not an argument that has much place in actual moral life. It is, rather, the sort of moral argument people have in rarefied circumstances when they can set aside the moral concerns of actually living their lives and let their moral imaginations fly a bit. An argument to make when we aren't considering any actual practical decisions.

And opponents of new urbanism are very businesslike as clear when Hain sums up some opposing arguments:

The response to such arguments has been swift and to the point. People like having larger yards, fresh air, and separation from their neighbors. Commute times have not drastically increased; we are simply driving faster. And claims about the environmental impact of suburban development are deeply controversial, as are claims about what sort of human development represents “beautiful architecture.” The white picket fences of the new urbanist town of Celebration, built by the Disney Company, are “charming” to some and nothing more than tacky kitsch to others.

You can feel those objections can't you? No matter what side you might take, all these arguments sound like something that might break out in a real discussion you might have with your neighbour or spouse about actual living arrangements. When Hain begins building his counterargument, however, we very quickly move off into things that don't seem to get much traction:

First, we are by nature social animals. Second, the most important human goods are the moral and intellectual virtues: courage, temperance, justice, prudence, wisdom, and the like. Third, the communities that make virtuous action possible and so make happiness possible include families, churches, schools, voluntary associations, and many other organizations that share a common purpose and whose members are therefore together pursuing common goods. Finally, the most important overall human community is the city itself, a community of communities, whose purpose is to shelter the various smaller communities and make possible the discovery, pursuit, and achievement of our complete human good, happiness itself.

First, does anyone dispute that we are social animals? And does this mean anything more than the trivial point that our living arrangements are social? A trait we share with an awful lot of other animals. And what about, I mean this as a quite serious issue, those times when I feel like being alone? When I don't want to be social and I don't want anyone else's idea of social life pushed on me? When I want to be able to go into my space and shut the gate, or the door.

And some kinds of social life I would be able to shut the door on more or less permanently. I don't want to be social with some particular people or with some particular kinds of people. I do not want to be social with hip hop fans. I hasten to point out that in my community at least, hip hop fans are all male, white, single and drive around in crappy little cars like Pontiac Sunbirds blasting their music really loud. I don't like these guys. I really don't like them. I wish they'd all change or go live somewhere else. And, for the record, I don't like the sort of aging guy who listens to "classic rock" really loud with his windows open on hot summer days either. (And I might point out that the very existence of the sort of walkable community that new urbanists favour tacitly assumes that these people can be made to go away somehow.)

What is a "human good"? How does it differ from a good such as a toasted English muffin with butter? Are moral and intellectual virtues really the most important? I know that I can go a lot longer without temperance than I can go without drink. I mean water not bourbon when I say drink but if bourbon were the only drink available, I'd still need it a lot more than I need temperance.

The communities that make virtuous action include families, churches, and so forth. That's probably true but it seems kind of trivial to me. How many already existing communities don't have these things? And didn't Nazi Germany have all these things and yet still develop one of the most hateful regimes in the history of humanity?

Finally, do we really know that the community of communities is the best? I mean we all live in communities of communities. Even if you live in a relatively isolated place on a nice lake somewhere you are still living with communities of communities. You pretty much have to be to survive. You don't make all your own food yourself. The electronic device you are reading this on came from someplace.

As I say, this whole argument all seems unbusinesslike to me. And I'll tell you what troubles me even more. I sense another, very businesslike, purpose at the heart of arguments like Hain's. A purpose so businesslike it strikes me as a little frightening. And that is the subject for part 2 which can be found here.