Sir, - In his article on Dana's presidential candidacy, Vincent Browne (August 30th) claims that there is a sharp dichotomy between the "liberal agenda", which is about enabling people to choose values without having those of others imposed on them, and the "common good" view, which is about having certain values endorsed by the state and imposed on all. He sees the former as modern and pluralist, the latter as intolerant and "fundamentalist".
In fact, the dichotomy is a false one. First, any sensible vision of the common good is going to include the value of personal freedom, since a totally paternalistic state imposing conformity in all areas of life would be a nightmare, destructive of human personality. All other things being equal, the more freedom, personal choice and tolerance in a society, the more the common good is promoted.
Second, a state of society cannot, even if it wanted, be totally value-free (as Mr Browne actually admits). Every society has to decide what kinds of behaviour it will accept, what it will disapprove of but legally tolerate, and what it will outlaw. Each decision implies endorsing certain values, and the accumulation of those decisions represents an emergent vision of what's good for society, i.e. of the common good.
Mr Browne notes that there are many views on the common good, as though this discredited the notion. Yet the same is true of freedom and tolerance. No matter what the issue, whether it be divorce, handguns, drugs, divorce, smoking or sexual harassment, there will be a diversity of views on the appropriate degree of tolerance and room for choice. Freedom and the common good are intimately linked, as is shown by the fact that the degree to which there is diversity of views about one is precisely the degree to which there is going to be diversity about the other.
Even if it is claimed that freedom should be the supreme value, it still has to be made concrete. One could claim that handgun possession should be legalised in order to be more tolerant, inclusive, and respectful of people's freedom. But one could also argue that widespread handgun availability would make us more frightened and hence less tolerant, exclusive of those who were vulnerable to gun violence, and destructive of people's freedom by increasing the danger of violence. The issue cannot be decided by appeals to freedom alone, but only through reasoned analysis of the harms and benefits to society as a whole, including the effects on human freedom. Freedom is an empty notion, until it is contextualised.
The pro-life constituency may need to become more aware of the moral value of freedom and choice, and acknowledge that those on the other side may have important insights into the common good. For their part, liberals might remember that, since they too care about the quality of life in our society, it is self-contradictory to denounce the very idea of the common good or the public welfare as "fundamentalist" or oppressive.
We need reasoned debate on many issues. It would help greatly if it were accepted that there is no dichotomy between freedom and the public good, and that it is unhelpful and misleading to accuse others of lacking commitment to either value. - Yours, etc.,
Seamus Murphy, SJ,
St Francis Xaviour Church, Gardiner Street, Dublin 1.