The liberal versus communitarian debate began when liberalism emerged as a political as well as philosophical movement. Philosophers like Locke and Kant developed theoretical views of society and human nature that stressed equality, personal autonomy, individual rights, and universalized moral principles. Communitarianism began when philosophers like Charles Taylor and Michael Walzer disputed these concepts and developed a core argument that is meant to contrast with liberalisms devaluation of the community. Charles Taylor in his essay “Atomism” disputes the concept of atomism, which is the idea that individuals largely shape themselves and thus that the individual, rather than the community, are the best subjects of analysis. Taylor thinks …show more content…
Although Taylor confesses that most advocates of the atomistic point of view would not necessarily believe that man could survive outside society, there is still a suggestion of self-sufficiency if we take the individual as the starting point and society as the byproduct. He says that the idea of physical survival outside of society is not the issue. The problem is whether individuals are only capable of developing their habitually human capacities within a society. I agreed with this point that he made because if a human can only realize their potential by being a part of a community, the primacy of rights essentially negatively impacts the individual. Therefore, if we agree with Taylor’s rationale, an atomistic concept of rights is essentially flawed because it denies society’s importance in an individual realizing their exclusively human potential. However, Taylor does not how why these human capabilities are only achievable within the …show more content…
The first states that liberalism accurately describes modern society, and grieves the fragmented nature of the current social world. The second claims the opposite, that liberalism falsifies the social world of communal connections, and the communitarian disagrees with this distortion. His claim in this article is that each part of the critique portrays a partial truth. Our contemporary social world is depicted by a greater degree of impartiality, but remains communal in important aspects. Walzer says that liberalism is both more accurate than the second group of communitarian critics admits, but more misrepresenting than its supporters believe. This is why he thinks that the liberalism-communitarian debate is one that will never end. Liberalism necessitates communitarian correction because it cannot function as a substantial form of social life without some aspects of communal bonds and shared values. But, simultaneously, the communitarian critique cannot win the debate because the only worthwhile form of community is a liberal one. I think Walzer’s distinction between the two lines of criticism is a helpful one, and the essay provides a good assessment of the