If you haven't read Part 1, please do. This is a measure of how best to foster a strong and free society. Institutionalism vs. Humanism Institutionalism: Strong institutions (government or non-government, formal or informal) build better individuals. The institutions central to our society (market, congress, bureaucracy, church, civil religion) must be preserved or freedom means nothing, even if this means some-- or even many individuals will slide through the cracks. Responsibility as defined by our institutions is a prerequisite for rights as defined by our institutions. Humanism: Institutions are tools for humans and have no justification other than what good they do people. Traditional values should be discarded and important institutions radically ammended if it means a better life for individuals. Institutions should not set responsibilities so great that they hinder human rights for any individual. Even a few people falling through the cracks is unacceptable and means that there is a need for change. Choose one of the above. If you're in between, pick a "soft" option. If you need a tie-breaker, consider: To what extent must we support our institutions to ensure that individuals gain the character and skills necessary to sustain society? At what point does individual failure suggest a failure of social institutions?
