I'd disagree with it, for the reasons suggested above: a successful plan for the ordering of society can't rely on the growth of private virtue. It has to harness private vices for the public good. For example, the egalitarianism of 20th century Scandinavia was fuelled as much by envy (the Jantelagen) as by Rawlsian considerations.
You can justify my pessimism either on Christian grounds (sin is ineradicable) or on game-theoretic ones -- co-operation has to be enforced with punishments for defection.
So I think the question to ask of any attempt to improve society by changing attitudes is "What vices does your platform appeal to, and are they widespread enough?"
It's not that we don't need virtues too but those are always catered for at length in the manifesto.
I wonder what you'd think about https://jonathanblake.substack.com/p/the-liberal-manifesto
I'd disagree with it, for the reasons suggested above: a successful plan for the ordering of society can't rely on the growth of private virtue. It has to harness private vices for the public good. For example, the egalitarianism of 20th century Scandinavia was fuelled as much by envy (the Jantelagen) as by Rawlsian considerations.
You can justify my pessimism either on Christian grounds (sin is ineradicable) or on game-theoretic ones -- co-operation has to be enforced with punishments for defection.
So I think the question to ask of any attempt to improve society by changing attitudes is "What vices does your platform appeal to, and are they widespread enough?"
It's not that we don't need virtues too but those are always catered for at length in the manifesto.