But, as you say, for the present purposes, the “open, honest” stuff is certainly to be striven for.

That said, your original statement regarding the ‘open, honest question’ does not imply it is an imperative for all, although I continue to guess that you think so, at least for this ethical debate. As do I.

I’ve described dialog as a tool—and therefore see no more reason to talk about ultimate ends than if we were talking about how best to build a mousetrap.

If you say you are trying to trap a mouse but instead you hurt your finger, someone should point out that you’re going about it wrong. This is pretty much what I meant to say about Novak. He isn’t doing the very thing he set out to do.

And I’m with you about markets. I think I’ve made clear I’m not trying to divinize dialog or commerce or any such thing. I don’t think that they will solve all of our problems for us in some messianic way, as some do. Rather, they are things to be used carefully precisely because their powers are beyond anyone’s control (as all the big in my city are learning today).

Nevertheless, I fail to see how one can have a discussion about the purpose of dialog without first specifying the ultimate ends toward which the dialog is oriented (which I believe we agree are the also the ultimate ends of ethics, communitarian or otherwise). Consequently, if your criticism of Novak is that he fails to initiate an honest and open dialogue, it seems to me that you must also provide some argument as to why he should do so (rather than a statement as to how ethics and dialog occasionally overlap — vague, although my agreement is substantial).

But none of this is the ‘deep concerns;’ rather, my personal and greater concern is that commerce does become the ultimate reason and guideline for societal ethics as it has in the past and already is in the minds of many in the city which you happen to reside, which may be masked in polite language regarding ‘free markets.’ Along with other thinkers (P. Bobbit, J. Robb) I expect this to greatly intensify in the coming decade. I believe persons concerned with a broader spectrum of ethical behavior must be ready for these shifts and willing to make strong statements in favor of the truth (which, as Aung San Suu Kyi illustrates, is often not without its costs).

None of your options, A, B, or C, represents what I am trying to get at—though I’m seeing how you can get those readings. Let me try bullet points.

? I have said repeatedly, I do not take dialog to be the goal of ethics or an end in itself—in the essay that started this, I merely took Novak at his word (or agreed conditionally) that, in the particular situation at hand, dialog might be worth trying out.

? Just as dialog is not the goal of everything, neither is peace or commerce, or any such thing—I have said nothing about ultimate ends, which I consider to be the purview of communitarian ethical systems.

? I speak on the one hand of commerce, dialog, peace, etc., as tools which are available to ethics, which ethics can choose to use or not use depending on its imperatives.

? So when I speak of “conflating” ethics and dialog, perhaps the word is too strong; I only mean that there are times when the two become indistinct, and when dialog can unpredictably turn the ethical enterprise on its head—as any technology can transform those who use it.

Since you’ve taken me so far, tell me more about where these deep concerns in you are coming from? It would help me to know what is driving you to push these points. What is at stake, my friend?

The one maxim you bring forward is ‘peace.’ While I share the value generally, where is ‘peace’ when the exploitive situation I described earlier exists? The class of persons with money-power always claims they desire peace while they use violence to obtain more money-power, or at least to uphold the status quo? As the prophets stated violently, ‘peace, peace, but there is no peace;’ the same maxim holds with respect to American business interests in Burma. Here and everywhere there is a need for a strong voice to uphold that which we claim to hold dear (whether we believe it is self-evident or not). To hold hands with such persons in Burma (again, the ruling class) and say ‘we must start with dialog,’ is a circumspect way of saying we must forever consign the persons below them to chains. I thank God for Aung San Suu Kyi and others within the State Department who have been willing to take a stand for Truth, not simply the priority of commerce.

In truth, the situation has not worsened to the point I expect it shall in a few years, when the rule of commercial
enterprises will be all that is left of the American dream. Remember our discussion about your decision to include an essay advocating a non-pacifist pacifism because of the use of ‘oppressive violence,’ in a journal you formerly edited? Is not this also a lapse in the ‘communitarian ethic’ ?