No, this isn’t another one of my “Rule of Law” posts. A bit more esoteric, I’m afraid.

I was reading Michael Gerson’s latest Washington Post column this evening, a profile of Harvard University prof Michael Sandel and his teachings on moral philosophy, and as usual I thought first of China and economic development.

OK, first an excerpt:

Sandel is best at what he calls bringing “moral clarity to the alternatives we confront as democratic citizens.” In this cause, he outlines three attempts to define the meaning of justice, each with large public consequences.

Definition one is the maximization of social welfare — the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But utilitarianism, in Sandel’s view, has glaring weaknesses. It allows no principled defense of individual rights. What if the sum of social happiness is increased by throwing a minority to the lions? And utilitarianism ultimately can make no distinction between fulfilling higher forms of happiness and degraded ones. Why should we prefer the pleasures of art museums to the pleasures of dog fighting?

A second definition of justice consists of respecting individual freedom. This approach can take the form of market-oriented libertarianism — the belief that justice is identical to the free choices of consenting adults. Or it can have a more egalitarian expression, in which society is organized for the benefit of its least-advantaged members. But both of these views assume that government’s only job is to set fair rules and procedures; it is entirely up to free individuals to choose the best way to live.

Many Americans would find this view not only unobjectionable but also unassailable. Sandel assails it. “I do not think,” he says, “that freedom of choice — even freedom of choice under fair conditions — is an adequate basis for a just society.”

This equation of justice with freedom, he says, is unrealistic about the way human beings actually live. Our views of right and wrong, duty and betrayal, are not merely the result of individual free choice. All of us are born into institutions — a family that involves our unconditional love, a community that elicits feelings of solidarity, a country that may demand a costly loyalty. Sandel argues that a liberal individualism cannot explain these deep attachments. We are “bound by some moral ties we haven’t chosen.”

Sandel, in the good company of Aristotle, contends that knowing “the right thing to do” in any of these institutions requires a determination of its purpose. And the purpose of government is not only to defend individual rights but also to honor and reward civic virtues — patriotism, self-sacrifice and concern for our neighbor. This third definition of justice, by nature, is a moral enterprise.

Because Sandel is a progressive, he calls this approach “communitarian.”

So, what do I take from all this? Well, first, and this might sound a bit harsh, I think that China’s rapid economic development has allowed some of the worst parts of both utilitarianism and libertarianism to creep in.

Let me explain. The libertarianism can best be illustrated by reminding everyone that rich folks here have gotten away with a great deal over the past decade or so, sometimes at the expense of poorer citizens. Moreover, large portions of the social safety net that was put into place many years ago, including health care, have been dismantled. This is a well-traveled subject, but it should be discussed at least as often as all those articles on how many billionaires there are in China and how swimmingly well the luxury goods biz is going.

At the same time, China remains quite utilitarian in many ways. Sacrifices are made all the time, many in the name of “progress.” Historic buildings are torn down, individuals lose their homes to developers, one could point to a huge number of rules instituted during the Olympics that put the smooth running of the games as a priority ahead of the needs of individuals. Sometimes these sacrifices seem quite callous to Americans and other Westerners, who have a much more libertarian streak.

In a strange way, therefore, I believe that China’s development has pushed the idea of economic liberalism (at the individual level) to the fore, while the older idea of shared sacrifice for the benefit of the country is still maintained. For a lot of people, this is the worst possible situation to be in.

This takes me back to Sandel’s last concept of justice, as described by Gerson in terms of broad policy goals:

[T]he purpose of government is not only to defend individual rights but also to honor and reward civic virtues — patriotism, self-sacrifice and concern for our neighbor[.]

When we talk about concern for our neighbor, we get away from utilitarianism, but if sacrifice and patriotism is part of this concern, then this suggests things like progressive taxation, robust social insurance systems, affordable education, etc.

To me, this all sounds a lot like a John Rawls way of looking at things, which is quite OK since I personally gravitate to the Rawlsian framework of morality that in my mind nicely encompasses individual motivations as well as explaining community-based moral standards. (I can’t say that I’ve read Rawls exhaustively, so my views may be slightly off, but I’ve always found his veil of ignorance idea shockingly simple and amazingly useful when I think about moral philosophy. Maybe the concept is too simple for the big brains out there, but it sure works for me — I’m a lawyer, not a philosopher.)

To bring this back to China, the current debate over fast-as-possible economic growth vs. a more balanced approach that would hopefully reduce the income gap and put into place a better social safety net, seems like it can be discussed using the above concepts. Makes it a more interesting debate, I think.

By the way, it has been widely reported that Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao are on the side of “rebalancing,” even if such policies operate as a short-term drag on growth.

I guess that’s enough moral philosophy for tonight. For the record, I have not been drinking copious amounts of alcohol. I came up with all of this completely sober, which in retrospect is actually quite alarming.