Plato, Tocqueville and Dr. Johnson all suggest that citizens of a democracy are predisposed against the idea of making normative and ethical arguments and evaluations. Plato suggests that because democracy aims for equality, everything is considered “right” or “correct.” If everyone is right, then all arguments would be empirical because no one can be wrong.[1] Tocqueville also shares similar thoughts. In his study of American life, he states that “America is, therefore, the one country in the world where the precepts of Descartes are least studied and best followed.”[2] As the founder of modern rationalism, Descartes suggests that opinions and actions should only be based on knowledge and reasoning, leaving no room for normative thinking. Tocqueville suggests that Americans have no time for normative evaluations because they easily take norms and established knowledge as is without questioning it. Lastly, Dr. Johnson argues that “lazy relativism,” the idea that people avoid intellectual debates by simply “agreeing to disagree,” has led to the lack of normative arguments.[3] While the three scholars wrote these beliefs during three different time periods, they all find themselves at the same conclusion. To a degree, I think they are correct. Tocqueville suggests that there are less knowledge-based decisions and I would further clarify that this is because of the acceptance of ‘common’ knowledge. What is found is that the “acceptance of knowledge” is more focused on normative knowledge so that normative arguments can be dismissed, as Dr. Johnson has theorized. The ideas presented by these three scholars are exemplified in my daily life. At American University, I am surrounded by politically inclined students. I have a friend who has a very different perspective on abortion access than me. Abortion access is a highly debated and divisive issue. However, for the sake of our friendship, we do not discuss abortion access because we both believe that our belief is ‘correct.’ We are both students who are capable of having a conversation, however, because our beliefs are deep-rooted we agree to ignore this glaring difference so that we can continue to be friends. If we were to have a discussion on abortion access we would likely use different language (pro and anti-life and pro and anti-choice) and feel upset with the lack of agreement about a moral and ethical discussion. My friend and I are both raised in the United States and both grew up knowing that our beliefs are equally valuable to anyone else’s. The discomfort associated with normative arguments is undesirable and thus leads to a lack of such discussions.

 

 

[1] Plato, Republic Book VIII

[2] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2, Part 1, Chapter 1 (2000) 403-410.

[3] Leigh M. Johnson, “Lazy Relativism,”  Read More Write More Think More Be More, November 7, 2009, http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2009/11/lazy-relativism.html

 

 

Johnson,  Leigh M. “Lazy Relativism.”  Read More Write More Think More Be More, November 7, 2009. http://www.readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore.com/2009/11/lazy-relativism.html

Plato. Republic Book VIII.

Tocqueville, de Alexis. Democracy in America Volume 2, Part 1, Chapter 1, 2000.