Review by Choice Review
Thunder's passionately argued, nonconsequentialist book claims that it is possible for both citizens and leaders in a constitutional democracy to practice the virtues and integrity that entail a "worthy" life, without the ethical or moral compromises that some authors claim may be necessary in public life. In his "integrationist thesis," he argues, regardless of consequences, for one morality for citizens and leaders, not a separate, public morality. He weakens this position by admitting that the use of force, coercion, threats, boycotts, and even war may be just under some circumstances. Thunder (Univ. of Navarra, Spain) insists that citizenship can contribute to a morally worthy life, an important argument requiring deeper development. Several caveats are necessary. Thunder's criticism of John Rawls and Reinhold Niebuhr for advocating a "separationist thesis"-political success requires ethical compromise-does not address their concern for stability, especially Niebuhr's confrontation with economic collapse and fascism, and potential agreement with many of Thunder's specific virtues. The picture of constitutional democracy is too limited and neglects political and economic, deliberative, and participatory arguments. Discussion of integrity and citizenship in nondemocratic systems might soften his qualms about constitutional democracies. Summing Up: Recommended. Graduate and research collections. --Conrad P. Waligorski, University of Arkansas
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
