Trevor Scoles
Unless one writes a full-length treatise, building an argument from its most essential premises, any argument will necessarily be built upon presuppositions.
Noting this, any discussion with Gennady Stolyarov II must begin at a more basic level than the definition of civility. The proper debate centers more closely upon civilization itself.
Civility is created out of civilization, and, necessarily, it may vary from civilization to civilization. Ethical codes of conduct are markedly different in the United States when compared to Japan, Spain, Uganda or Mexico. This fact results because those notions of civility are rooted in different conceptions of what constitutes civilization.
I make no claims to know the nature or depth of Stolyarov’s faith, but it does not appear to be a Christian faith. However, Hillsdale College is founded upon the Judeo-Christian heritage, our religion department is explicitly Christian, most of the campus adheres to Christian principles, intramural organizations such as InterVarsity and Catholic Society flourish and the surrounding community thrives with a variety of Christian denominations. If Stolyarov is not, in fact, a Christian, he must begin with a much more basic argument, for he is debating the merits of one notion of civilization over another, not how a particular civilization should conduct itself.
A Christian civilization is predicated upon the belief that man is a being that is unworthy of respect or pride. One of the few remaining doctrines among fundamental, catholic Christianity is the doctrine of original sin: Man, since the Fall, is inherently twisted, perverse, cruel and prideful.
Thus, in many instances, “self-abnegation” would probably be a good idea. To the Christian, humility is a virtue because man is unworthy of the gracious redemption that God has lovingly granted mankind.
And yet, the Christian is called to love his neighbor as himself. This is because man is created by God, and he bears the imprint of the Divine Maker. To the average Christian, men deserve respect because God created them, because he gave them his word, because he sent his only son to redeem them on the cross and because he has offered to all the hope of everlasting life. It is indeed a delicate balance between reconciling the ethics of original sin and the new covenant.
Stolyarov’s article implicitly flirts with utilitarianism. Hyper-rational Benthamite inclinations manifest themselves within the dichotomy Stolyarov sets up between “a productive entrepreneur” and “a drug-addicted bum.” It continues with “a meticulously rational inventor” and “the totalitarian dictator.”
Nevermind the sheer improbability that any individual could be meticulously rational—the selections Stolyarov makes are disconcerting. His civilizational spectrum seems to have entrepreneurs and inventors at one end and drug-addicts and totalitarians at the other.
He then values one over the other because of their inherent usefulness to society at large, not out of any intrinsic sense worth these individuals might possess. It bears noting that the logical extension of this rationale has led to numerous instances of genocide and euthanasia throughout the 20th century. I, for one, would grant a definite and concrete respect to that drug-addicted bum and to that totalitarian dictator because they bear the faintest stamp of divinity; I just wouldn’t let them marry my daughter.
The problem before us is that Stolyarov and the generic Hillsdale student are talking past each other on this issue. If Stolyarov wishes to convert others to his line of thinking, he should begin with a more fundamental argument. Rather than presupposing that his readers will agree with the implicit premises of his argument, he should begin at the beginning.
Scoles is a Hillsdale College senior majoring in history and music.