The Morality of Everyday Life: Rediscovering an Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition

by Thomas Fleming

In The Morality of Everyday Life , Thomas Fleming offers an alternative to the enlightened liberalism espoused by thinkers as different as Kant, Mill, Rand, and Rawls. Philosophers in the liberal tradition, although they disagree on many important questions, agree that moral and political problems should be looked at from an objective point of view and a decision made from a rational perspective that is universally applied to all comparable cases. Fleming instead places importance on the particular, the local, and moral complexity.  He advocates a return to premodern traditions, such as those exemplified in the texts of Aristotle, the Talmud, and the folk wisdom in ancient Greek literature, for a solution to ethical predicaments. In his view, liberalism and postmodernism ignore the fact that human beings by their very nature refuse to live in a world of universal abstractions. While such modern philosophers as Kant and Kohlberg have regarded a mother’s self-sacrificing love for her children as beneath their level of morality, folk wisdom tells us it is nearly the highest morality, taking precedence over the duties of citizenship or the claims of humanity. Fleming believes that a modern type of “casuistry” should be applied to these moral conflicts in which the line between right and wrong is rarely clear. This volume will appeal to students of ethics and classics, as well as the general educated reader, who will appreciate Fleming’s jargon-free prose. Teachers will find this text useful because each chapter is a self-contained essay that could be used as the basis for classroom discussion.   

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Cultural

280 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 2004

About the author

Thomas Fleming is the editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture and the president of The Rockford Institute in Rockford, Illinois.

Reviews

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be a must read. Do-gooders and busybodies should mind their own business. This book deconstructs the notion of "rights" that our entire political order is based on. A few quotes:
Liberalism has been correctly described as “the political theory of modernity.” ((John Gray, Liberalism, 90.)) Some postmodern intellectuals have criticized the liberal consensus from Descartes to John Rawls as nothing more than an artifact of the modern West. Alasdair MacIntyre, H.G. Gadamer, radical feminists, some communitarian leftists, deconstructionists, and neo-Freudians, have all been troubled by the smug uniformity of the liberal tradition. But few of them have been prepared to abandon the tradition, much less to seek alternatives in the premodern traditions of, for example, classical antiquity and Judaism, partly because those traditions have themselves been misrepresented as forerunners of modern rationalism. Even the most severe critics of liberalism, such as MacIntyre, seem content to point out the shortcomings of liberalism; they have been reluctant, for the most part, to take the final step of recommending some form of premodern ethics as a positive alternative. [pages 8-9]
A later philosopher, Aristotle, warned his fellow Greeks against the perils of a large commonwealth in which aliens can usurp the privileges of citizens. [page 23]
Since Voltaire regarded himself as a victim of clerical censorship, it was no small personal satisfaction to imagine the suffering and death of his enemies. Voltaire was, in fact, the very model of the modern sentimentalist. A chronic liar who flattered the very people he was labelling, faithless in love and friendship, he forfeited the esteem of Frederick the Great when he speculated on the devalued Saxon currency after learning that Frederick  who had forbidden speculation  was going to redeemed it. Proclaiming the loftiest standards of human justice and defying the Creator himself, Voltaire would cheat a benefactor out of the price of a load of firewood. Even Rousseau was appalled by the hypocrisy Voltaire displayed over the earthquake: Here was a man of inordinate wealth and fame complaining against the unfairness of the universe? [page 38]
The French Revolution was the seminal event of modern times, the period when Enlightenment theories of liberty and equality, natural rights and the social contract assumed a concrete form. All subsequent history in the West has been a series of attempts to extend (or resist) the principles of the revolution, and since World War II there has been no serious opposition to the ideology of 1789. [page 51]
Orwell distinguished this nationalist habit of mind from patriotism, which he defined as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people.” [page 54]
The state, as St. Thomas understood, exists to make virtue possible and not to impose virtue upon the people.
We can, however, draw a valid distinction between patriotism as an ethical and political virtue, originating in natural attachments but formed and directed by the state, and nationalism as a statist ideology that opposes and excludes other loyalties, whether those loyalties are to an international religion and civilization or to the province or region of one’s birth. [page 57]

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

This philosophical book examines causitry, a philosophical idea that precedes modern philosophical liberalism. Although the author never defines causitry, it appears to be the idea that every situation must be handled differently, based on its merits and the people involved. As a philosophical idea, the book is intriguing. The author does a good job contrasting actual charity with theoretical ideals, although I suspect that he exaggerates the number of people who claim to believe in universal charity, but who are completely uncharitable in their personal lives.

The author also appears to be a traditional Christian, as well as a philosopher, and when he turns to the Christian tradition to support causitry, he is on much shakier ground. He ends up twisting Gospel passages to downplay concern for the poor and marginalized which is evident in the originals. His emphasis on family responsibilities implies that being a good family man or mother is the sum total of the Christian life, which in turn plays in to the idolatry of families and small communities so prevalent among conservative Christians today.

[Seth · Rating 4 out of 5]

A series of arguments about the limits of universal "rights" language that feels extremely intuitive, surrounded by a broader defense of casuistry and situational reasoning. Fleming certainly isn't the most organized or consistent writer; his tone and arguments often shift wildly to the point where some sections feel out-of-place in a volume published by a university press. Similarly, I have a very difficult time imagining how Fleming speaks and behaves irl, although I suppose I could look this up if I wanted to. The citation of a book called "Karl Marx: Racist" is a particularly fun moment.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting critique of America’s founding principles. Rather than self-evident truths, Fleming puts these ideas in historical context and suggests other more fulfilling ways of structuring society. Like most critiques of classical liberalism, it’s persuasiveness is hindered by conceiving liberty as license and the gulf between what is and what he suggests as what would be better.

[Andy Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book on conservatism hands down. Read it and read it again—it’s that good.

[Art · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent ethics book from a true scholar!

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent critique of modern-day assumptions, among other things.