I find Walzer and Ash’s arguments particularly interesting. Walzer’s concepts of “truth” and “justice” and Ash’s proposal that democracy is a new, innate normal both seem squishy. But despite this, I find both arguments convincing. And it seems that their squishy-ness is exactly what enables them to be so effective. Walzer comes to a conclusion that our concepts of truth and justice stem from our larger experiences and teachings, our morals are just an “abstraction […] that only alludes to the complexity of the original.” Ash’s argument is similar: that somehow we are drawn to democracy through our deep morals. Obviously, these statements are both hard to verify or falsify. But I think these two arguments verbalize a truth that people feel across the world in a variety of settings. They have a way of making me (and, I presume, many Westerners) better understand why I feel passionate about the protection of democracy, truth, and justice. But I also recognize my biases. I live in a Western democracy that values truth and justice, and it is entirely possible that someone living in, say, an Eastern dictatorship would scratch their head at my values. So even though I find these arguments interesting, I am also aware that I cannot read them without bringing my personal experiences and moral beliefs to the table.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I find Walzer and Ash’s arguments particularly interesting. Walzer’s concepts of “truth” and “justice” and Ash’s proposal that democracy is a new, innate normal both seem squishy. But despite this, I find both arguments convincing. And it seems that their … Continue reading