Slacktivist on Virtues versus Values

The Slacktivist has a very interesting discussion on the difference between virtues and, particularly as Glenn Beck uses the term, values. This is a follow up to a previous entry on the same topic. The primary distinction is that “virtues” require being and work. “Values” generally require nothing more than saying one “values” something.

I was struck particularly by the discussion of two of Beck’s values: charity and personal responsibility. On the surface, these sound like good things, but there is a certain Orwellian “up-is-down” character to them where charity absolves one of any duty to help anyone and personal responsibility refers not to one’s own personal responsibilities but the lack of duty to anyone else.

What does Glenn Beck mean by “charity”? He means “charity” instead of justice. Charity as opposed to justice. He means charity as a strictly voluntary, optional, extravagant (in nature, if not in scope) act.* He means he owes nothing to the needy, that the rich man owes nothing to Lazarus at the gate.

This is a redefinition of charity that was invented expressly for the purpose of defending a lack of charity. It is “charity” that proclaims the right not to share, not to give, not to be affected at all by the need of others. It is a denial of obligation, a denial of connection and of interconnection, a denial of kinship. It is the charity of Cain, rejecting any obligation to be one’s brother’s keeper.

That same insistence — we are not our brother’s keeper — is also at the heart of what Beck means by the term “personal responsibility.” For the 912 Project this does not mean that you must take responsibility for your choices and actions, not blaming others for your misfortunes. It means, rather, that you are responsible only for yourself and that you are free of any and all responsibility for anyone else. For Beck, in other words, “personal responsibility” is a declaration of irresponsibility.

This idea combines with the stunted anti-justice redefinition of charity to rationalize the refusal to assist others as a humane “do not feed the bears” policy. Which makes sense if you think of the world as an uncivilized jungle. And if you think of people in need as subhuman beasts.

“If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own,” one of Beck’s 912 disciples said to The New York Times’ Kate Zernike.** That man collects unemployment and Social Security, but spends most of his free time angrily making sure no one else can.