Some of our most important beliefs are ideas we rarely question or avoid debating publicly.

Public policy debates often fail to analyze the underlying assumptions that give rise to conflict. By unpacking assumptions, we can identify important ideas that are often overlooked.

Below are some important assumptions that deserve more attention and explicit discussion. They are organized under three general topics: morality and civic behavior, institutional roles, and economics. We hope you will find them thought provoking and consider contacting us to share your views. As this website grows, we will add more topic categories, unexamined assumptions, and links to essays about these subjects.

On morality and civic behavior:

⇒  Many of society’s most important underpinnings are not rules of law but customs, mores, and shared expectations.

The degree to which we have viewed the importance of, for example, polite behavior, willingness to compromise, and respect for institutional norms and authority has shifted over the past several decades. How important are these unwritten rules? Is the need to build consensus about their importance and content at least as great as the merits of specific substantive disputes?

⇒  Our expectations for sacrifice have changed.

President Kennedy proclaimed, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Should we aspire to that mentality? Does the answer change depending upon whether our country is currently facing a crisis, such as war or depression, and if so, why?

⇒  Is it good for society if its leaders and members are idealistic?

Hope is a powerful force in a society, but does it create a risk of naivete in dealing with aggressive foreign nations or enemies? What’s the difference between idealism and ambition, and which do we need more of? Is it important to be able to take the moral high ground in both domestic and foreign policy debates, and if so, why?

⇒  How do we distinguish appropriate condemnation from unfair judgmentalism?

Do I have a right, for example, to have racist attitudes? To politely explain the basis of those attitudes? To try to convert others to my beliefs? To use racial slurs to a denigrated person’s face? Do you have a right to criticize my racist attitudes publicly even if I’ve only shared those views with you in private? Do your answers change if my beliefs are based on sincere religious teachings? If my beliefs are homophobic rather than racist?

⇒  How do we decide which actions to hold people accountable for under the guise of “personal responsibility”?

At what age does such accountability begin? Can we answer this question without taking into account the different advantages and disadvantages that people have had?

⇒  Are people born good or bad? Does it matter?

If we are born good, then do we blame someone or something other than ourselves when things go wrong? If we are born bad, does that mean we have only ourselves to blame when something goes wrong, so the government should not step in to help? Are these futile questions because we can never know, for practical purposes, the answer to whether we are born good or bad? Or because our behavior can improve or degrade regardless of how we were born?

⇒ Should people feel obligated to try to contribute something to the greater good of society?

If so, do people with privilege have an enhanced obligation to contribute? How do we define what constitutes privilege?

On institutional roles:

⇒  Does everyone in America start out with equal opportunity?

If not, should the government and other institutions play a role in creating equal opportunity, and how do we decide what those roles should be?

⇒  Is voting a civic obligation or just a personal choice?

Should voting be required of all adult citizens?

⇒  Is it appropriate for wealthier people to have more political influence than people with fewer assets?

Does the answer change depending upon whether the specific type of influence is the ability to lobby, to buy multiple votes, to make campaign contributions, or to live in exclusive neighborhoods? If so, why? Does it matter how a wealthy person accumulated his or her assets?

⇒  Consistent with the Constitution’s separation of church and state, can religious beliefs ever have a legitimate place in motivating legislation?

If so, does the Constitution permit the majority religion to prevail in its influence?

⇒  Can we, and should we, teach moral lessons in public schools without promoting religion?

If so, how do we distinguish appropriate versus inappropriate moral lessons?

⇒  When, and to what extent, is it appropriate for the government to limit people’s selfishness?

Is that what the tax code does? Mandatory military or civilian service? Incentives for charity work?

⇒  What characteristics make someone “disadvantaged”?

Should all disadvantages be treated similarly, and if not, how do we decide what kind of help to provide to people with disadvantages and who should provide that help?

On economics:

⇒  Is it important for a family to have wealth, and if so, why?

Once a family can afford a safe home, healthful food, adequate clothing, health care, quality education for their children, and a sustainable retirement, does the importance of acquiring additional wealth plateau or decrease? Should social policy be designed to maximize the number of families that can meet, but not exceed, this economic threshold?

⇒  “Free markets” exist in economic theory, but do they exist in real life?

If not, what are the practical consequences of relying on laissez faire economic policies?

⇒  Do all political parties care equally about helping poor people, even if the parties have different ideas about how best to help?

If not, why do some political parties care more than others?

Can you add to this list? Can you write a short essay about any of these topics? Contact us to share your thoughts.