Michael Sandel - Citizenship, Sacrifice, and Service - Essay Example

Michale J Sandel Citizenship, Sacrifice and Service Citizenship status carries with it both rights and responsibilities. "Active citizenship" is the philosophy that citizens should work towards the betterment of their community through economic participation, public, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens. In this vein, schools in some countries provide citizenship education. One Sandel’s basic assumption was that citizens would have quite different ideas of what "the good life" might entail. Sandel doesnt think questions about the good life can, or should, be set aside in that way; at every stage, they must be part of the debate over how societies should work. And he aims higher than grass-gazing. In Sandel’s opinion people should sacrifice for the common good instead of selfishly seeking their happiness: "Unlike customers, citizens sometimes sacrifice their wants for the sake of the common good. This is the difference between politics and commerce, between patriotism and brand loyalty". His idea is noble and very humane but awfully unlikely to attain fulfillment. I am not saying that no one is willing to sacrifice their enjoyment, their time or effort for the common good. What I am saying is that not many people would be up to it. People are, by nature, extremely selfish and the first thing on their minds is their own happiness and well-being. So, this unselfish act of sacrifice is hard for many people to do. On the other hand, many cases in which Sandel thinks sacrifice is needed, do not need any sacrifice. Michael J. Sandels displays a misunderstanding of environmental policy and of global warming. He argues that trading emissions credits undermines the ethic we should be trying to foster on the environment. What ethic does Mr. Sandel have in mind, other than his misplaced wish for a spirit of shared sacrifice? Why should environmental progress be accompanied by sacrifice? He asserts that a fee (that is, the cost of buying emissions credits) rather than a fine (for noncompliance) makes pollution just another cost of doing business. Exactly! There is no better way to incorporate environmental ethos into a company than to link the costs of pollution to the bottom line. According to the republican conception of citizenship, people should have more rights than just voting in elections and registering preferences or interests. To be free means to be able to participate in shaping the forces that govern the collective destiny. In order to do that, according to Sandel, and do it well, it is necessary that citizens possess or come to acquire certain qualities of character, or civic virtues. About the case of military service and voting, Sandel argues that there is reason to limit the role of markets in governing these practices more severely than we are accustomed to do. “In each case, an excessive role for markets corrupts an ideal the practices properly express and advance—namely, the ideal of citizenship as the republican tradition conceives it”. (Michael Sandel) In practice, despite the presence of civil service rules and labor unions, governments have made massive programmatic shifts, ranging from the closures of hundreds of mental institutions in the last two decades to the military base closures under way today. Tens of thousands of employees have been retrained to take on revised responsibilities.  The unhappy public service consumer, rather than voting, lobbying, or organizing politically to improve service performance, could jump ship and sign up elsewhere. By essentially abandoning hope of revitalizing the democratic process, we tend to forget how this society is complex and how decisions can be made here in ways that restore public confidence in government and that foster greater citizen participation. As much as people might be aware of the necessity to limit the role of markets in governing, there will always be a part of us that will still believe that what markets do is right and that is exactly the reason why it can never be permanently limited. However, the limitation of their role would be appopriate, practical and relieving to the regular citizens who would then have an increased freedom of choice and a much easier life. According to libertarians, the greatest threat to individual rights comes from the government. It shouldnt tell you how to live your life. Most important, the government should never tax for redistributive purposes. Redistributive taxation is theft. Taking your earnings and giving it to other people is like forcing you to work for those people. Libertarians say its almost like slavery. Sandel argues that military service should not be allocated by the labor market, as if it were just another job. According to this argument, all citizens have an obligation to serve their country. “Whether this obligation is best discharged through military or other national service, it is not the sort of thing that people should be free to buy or sell. To turn such service into a commodity—a job for pay—is to corrupt or degrade the sense of civic virtue that properly attends it.” Sandel quotes Rousseau who states that: “As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the state is not far from its fall. When it is necessary to march out to war, they pay troops and stay at home.... In a country that is truly free, the citizens do everything with their own arms and nothing by means of money; so far from paying to be exempted from their duties, they would even pay for the privilege of fulfilling them themselves.... I hold enforced labor to be less opposed to liberty than taxes” What Sandel is implying is that no one should be able to buy themselves into or out of the army, because army should be served by every man, for it is every man’s duty. Then again, it is not only a matter of duty, but how the paid army can be trusted in the case of war. Would they be ready to risk their lives for their country? Also, Sandel states that in the American army, that consists of men who are paid to be there, does not let in neither people of color nor foreigners. Why would it matter of which nationality they are if they are paid to serve the army? The right thing to do would be to make a rule according to which everyone would have to contribute and serve their country, but there will always be ways for wealthy people, who don’t want to go to the army, to pay the government to be excused or to pay someone to replace them. Money always finds the way to people’s greed and need. Sandel’s idea and argument about not letting people buy themselves in or out of the army is, in my opinion just, and practical, because it would make all people who live in America equal, regardless of their religion, color of their skin or nationality and it would oblige them to, at one point, serve the military, no matter how wealthy or poor they are. Some key questions raised by Sandels work are: Can one stress the importance of group solidarity without reigniting the ethnic and religious tensions that liberalism was designed to ameliorate? Can the notion that some ways of living are better than others, and that politicians and judges should make such judgments, be resuscitated without breeding intolerance or coercion? The answer is yes. There are two reasons to consider either conscription or some form of universal national service that would include military service as an option. One is the reason you suggest: if the decision to go to war does not involve any risk or sacrifice on the part of those making the decision, wars will be undertaken too lightly. The Iraq war is an example. Few members of Congress or the administration had family members who served in the war. A second reason is one of fairness: The volunteer army draws disproportionately from the lower middle class. The sons and daughters of the affluent are largely exempt. But if the nation decides to go to war, there is something to be said for sharing the sacrifice, rather than hiring those who cannot otherwise afford college to fight and die on our behalf. Sandel saw a connection between a just society—one in which all citizens are treated fairly—and a good society—one in which we take civic obligation seriously and don’t allow ourselves to be distracted by material preoccupations. In my opinion, his thoughts and ideas are just and would be very practical and logical if they would attain fulfillment, but unfortunately, our society has too many corrupted people on high positions and that makes any good change that would affect them harder to happen. But everything is possible if people try hard, and if they work together to accomplish the same goal. Read More