Central themes in the discussion of liberalism

A major debate is whether liberalism has a coherent set of ultimate ends for society or whether it is
merely about allowing diverse values to coexist…
Early on it sought a universal and foundational character: all would converge on a morally appropriate
‘good’ life that combined individual autonomy, virtue, and a commitment to the public realm
Later many decried it as morally neutral, as a ‘meta-ideology’ with no coherent commitment to the good
beyond individual rights… a setting within which we can argue…
Some advocate a ‘modus-vivendi’ approach
1. Individual

Individual identity, interests, autonomy is a post-feudal notion

Free men were free to be, and even forced to be, responsible and more autonomous, esp in market
realm
Rationality and science helped along the process
Natural rights theories emerged in 17th and 18th Cs’
Locke (1632-1704): life, liberty, and property
Kant (1724-1804): individuals were ‘ends in themselves’: they have equal worth
2 contrasting implications
Individuals unique and so primarily defined by inner qualities and attributes specific to selves
But despite their uniqueness, they share the same status—that of being individuals
So is self-interest the basis of human community?
And what is society? Just a collection of atomistized/atomistic individuals? Or something more than the
sum of its parts?
And what are the obligations of individuals to society, if any? What are the source of these obligations?
What does society owe individuals? Anything? Why?

Individualism

Methodological individualism rejects studying society beginning with collective categories (class, race,
gender or sex) in favor of looking at what individuals are/do/need/etc
Ethical individualism, which can be:
Egotistical liberalism (classical and new right liberalism)
Developmental individualism (social and progressive liberalism)
2. Freedom

The supreme value: freedom, liberty

Early on this was expressed as a natural right, and US culture frequently expresses it as such
Later other justifications
But it’s limited: not a state of license; in Mill’s famous harm principle, we should be free up to the point
where we harm others; he distinguishes
Self-regarding actions from
Other-regarding actions—and it’s these that can be regulated
Rawls expressed it in the principle that everyone is entitled to the widest possible liberty consistent with
a like liberty for all
Berlin distinguished
Negative theory of freedom (freedom from constraint)
Positive freedom (the ability to be one’s master, freedom to do…)
3. Reason

Faith in reason key, and a legacy of the Enlightenment—the age of reason

Rationality of individual humans: this means people think, decide, control their fate, gain responsibility
for their actions
Progress is bound up with rationality: making our destiny, but not necessarily utopian destiny
Hence education—education for reason and rationality
Discussion, debate and argument…conflict is inevitable at some level
Reason gives ways in which rival claims and demands can be evaluated
Violence is the failure of reason, except in self-defense after all other means have been worked out

4. Justice

Justice is a form of moral judgment about deserts, about giving person what they are due
Liberal theory of justice is based on belief of equality
Foundational equality (moral)
Formal equality (legal and political)
Equality of opportunity
Hence, meritocracy
But in practice…disagreement
How much equality is just?

5. Toleration and diversity

Liberal preference for diversity is really rooted in the principle of toleration

Originally it meant defending religious freedom
Distinct public and private spheres are therefore guaranteed
Mill added a social justification: ensures the vigor and health of society as a whole
Truth is result of competition of ideas
The plural society is also marked by the competition of group interests, but not interests that are
schismatic to the society as a whole: not class conflict, but group conflict
Some think liberal truths, liberal ideas will win the day, and so promote tolerance to facilitate the victory
of liberalism…
Toleration does not necessarily imply moral neutrality, tho’ some have gone so far…
Berlin thought value-conflict was inevitable… so liberalism must permit fundamental disagreement and
provide a context within which that disagreement can go on