Usually, when we think about variations of goodness and badness, we think about people being good or bad. We think "Donald Trump is a selfish person", "The Dalai Lama is a pious person", etc. Lebron characterizes not only people but also institutions as having character. He writes: "Institutions display bad character when: (1) they distinctly and systematically marginalize some citizens; (2) and do so under the auspices of and sometimes in the name of democratic values" (61). Of course, there are other ways that institutions can display bad character, such as failing to uphold contracts or infringing on other people or their property, but Lebron's argument is that any time an institution ticks the two boxes above, it displays bad character. When examining the social contract, it makes sense that any government rules under the auspices of democratic values. While there's definitely a debate over what constitutes consenting to a government, that government nevertheless has an obligation to its citizens' well-being.
Lebron applying the same morals to both people and institutions is nothing short of profound. A gut-reaction worry about making a moral evaluation of a large institution is that the judge makes a hasty generalization; examining each person on a case-by-case basis should provide a more accurate answer. Lebron justifies his application, arguing that "...what allows us to apply the idea of character to institutions is that (1) they display dispositions and (2) exhibit agency resulting in (3) behaviors that are susceptible to moral criticism or praise." (60) Essentially, institutions can intrude on a key human rights, marginalize citizens, and commit other crimes, and Lebron argues that it is fair to apply terms like "goodness" and "badness" to these institutions. On the generalization worry, Lebron primarily weighs how such an institution affects those living under it, for better or for worse. While membership of an institution changes as time goes on - in the United States' case, whether the Republicans or Democrats control the branches of government - systemic racism has remained constant. The bottom line is that if the model we use to evaluate whether or not an institution deserves shame is its results, Lebron is free to pass moral judgment on instiutions.
Cool post, Daniel. There seem to be so many reasons to challenge the idea of institutional character, e.g. that character has to do with dispositions, attitudes, beliefs etc., things that seem to presuppose a mind, yet institutions surely do not have minds. Yet Lebron does appear to make a powerful case, as you suggest, that the notion of character can profitably be extended to such entities.
ReplyDelete