It would be nice to live in a world of ideological, social, and cultural homogeneity where everyone agreed and no conflict was necessary. In such an environment, it would be easy to decide on the “good” in society because uniformity of thought and opinion would make this obvious. Leaders could then be trusted to implement good laws and likewise be held accountable to them.
But that simply isn’t reality. I don’t think I need to argue that point.
Whether it should be reality,
however, is where we are taking this essay. The ideological suppositions of
both liberals and conservatives often bridge the claim of moral superiority.
Those on the left may try to demonstrate, empirically, that a rational, secular
human being can only come to one conclusion. When this fails in practice –
since people are not so easily persuaded into one ideology – it creates a natural
dilemma.
If we disagree on truth,
morality, and the question of the “good,” how can we still create a
functioning, healthy, beneficial society? Is there only one “good” society –
and can it be forced on people?
A tiny history:
Enlightenment Era philosophers
decided that government could only be justified by consent. Generally called
the Social Contract theory, the idea was that if we all got together, drew up a
rulebook, and then agreed to live by it – laws would be justified.[1] Society would function by our own consent.
The popularity of representation in government is based on
this. Voting is our symbol that we still consent to live in our version of the “good
society.” However, this relies on the opinion and moral background of the
majority.
Unfortunately, majority
opinions are an unstable ground on which to base societal truths. In a true
democracy, how can one control a dangerous majority? The conclusion of many
classical liberal philosophers was to create a balance between a society of
consent (based on the vote of the majority) mixed with certain predetermined
rights or privileges (for the protection of the minorities). It was an attempt
to try and create unity based on mutually-served interests. Both minorities and
majorities could be protected.
Now, before we run away on the
classical liberal dream, one thing needs to be made entirely clear here:
It doesn’t work.
The above idea – simple as it
sounds – presupposes that the majority will always believe it is in their
interest to protect the minority. It also assumes they have a practical handle
on “what is good” for the minority and how it should be protected. In effect,
it necessarily relies on an unspoken but absolute requisite sense of morality
and a devotion to its preservation. In a society where conflicts of interest
are inevitable, definitions of morality matter more than interest.
I will use an extreme example
to illustrate the point. If we assume that the majority creates laws to protect
the minority because they are “risk-averse,” meaning afraid of one day becoming
the minority – wouldn’t it be simpler to just eradicate the minority? Or make
it impossible for them to gain power? We return to the problem of homogeneity
which historically (and even currently) is often resolved by simply killing
your neighbor.
In fact, slavery was a way of
controlling the minority without fearing them. Yes, slavery worked well in our
“consent-based” society by simply redefining whose voice needed consent. If
people of color could be classified as “not human,” then their interests did
not need to be protected. Under this shaky “majority rules” perspective, all
sorts of oppression can be justified.[2]
Before I digress too far down
this road, the point is that self-interest will never provide a strong enough
rationale for maintaining a good society. The US Constitution was intended to
combine structure, interest, and even the preservation of individual freedom to
try and make sure that the majority couldn’t oppress the minority and the
minority could freely become the majority if opinions changed. But in the end,
there is still a necessary reliance on the virtue and morality of the
citizenry. Because we, the people, still make and interpret law.
This is where I will begin to
talk about liberal progressivism. But first, a quick note on conservatives.
Both conservatives and liberals
are invested in creating protective standards of morality that majorities and
their elected leaders must adhere to.[3]
For conservatives, many of
their conclusions are based on faith, religion, natural law, and even
tradition. Eighteenth century British statesman, Edmund Burke, is seen by many
as the father of modern conservative thought. Burke strongly held to both
Natural Law and Western Tradition as the core of conservatism. In some ways,
this was a sort of anthropological, historical approach to morality. The idea
was that culture and tradition is passed down as evidence and precedence for
truth. To assume that a younger, less experienced generation could discover
truth separate from the past was hubris. Edmund Burke himself stated, “The
individual is foolish. The multitude, for the moment, is foolish, when they act
without deliberation; but the species is wise, and when time is given to it, as
a species it almost always acts right.”[4] If conservatives do not trust human nature
individually, they tend to trust surviving societies at large.
This assertion binds individuals
to their communities in a way that is not entirely different from how liberals
likewise interpret society. But while conservatives believe that institutions
and traditions keep them on track, liberals believe such entities keep them in
bondage. To progressives, the evils of gender and wage inequality, patriarchy,
and nationalism can all be justified under “tradition.”
I have often asserted that
conservatives seem as inclined to the trap of historical validity as liberals
are to “progressivism.” For true progressives, each generation adapts and
develops in a way that makes them more capable of understanding and redefining
truth. The future, unlike the past, holds greater promise of reality. Humans
are, in a way, bound toward a fixed end that is always beyond the present. To
be progressive is, put simply, to always look forward. Truth is malleable and
undefined.[5]
We’ll return to liberal
thought later. The simpler point is that not every conservative believes in
God.
But whatever the basis of
conservative morality, its adherents tend to be consistent and predictable in
their notion that if society is to survive, it needs to have a rationale for
morality that is dependable. They are much more comfortable with tradition,
natural law, and religion because (even if wrong or interpreted incorrectly)
the well-established nature of such justifications provides a solid footing on
which to make moral law. It appears more stable and dependable than alternative
notions of morality. Due to this consistency and personal devotion, they are
generally not shy about defending their moral ideas.
The clearest example of this –
using another extreme to illustrate the point – is the right-wing Christian
pro-life advocates who are so certain that God equates abortion to murder that
the argument that a woman “has a right to her own body” sounds more like, “I
have a right to kill a child if it makes me feel better personally.” While that
interpretation drives liberals insane, it is hard to argue against in terms of
consistency. It is predictable. There is no moral ambiguity there. You know why
such a Catholic voter is voting and that supplies a sort of predictability that
I personally find to be comforting, even if from a progressive standpoint is
largely frustrating. The point is – their vision of the good society will
differ exponentially from liberals – but many are strongly faithful to it.
And therein lies the question
for the political world – can we tell them not to be? Can we tell them their
morality (whatever its source) is wrong?
That is a fascinating question
for a pluralistic world – or one that tries to balance differing ideologies
while still advocating specific human rights.
Which brings us to liberal
progressivism.
In 1971, liberal philosopher
John Rawls published a theory that soon set the standard for modern liberal
thought. Embracing the challenge of unity in a diverse society, and not wanting
to force anyone to abide by someone else's personal moral beliefs, he decided
to try a thought-experiment to see if the principles of a “good” society could
be discovered by setting aside our personal biases in a new version of the
social contract.
He described what he called
the “original position,” and invited readers to consider entering into an
imaginary room where they wouldn’t remember anything about themselves.
Ultimately, the idea was that if you put aside your culture, tradition, faith,
gender, etc., then you couldn’t be blinded by prejudice or identity politics.
After setting up this world, he then posed the question – if we were to make
laws from the original position, what kind of laws would we make?
His answer was simple – fair
and equal laws. If you didn’t know your own race, wouldn’t you want a world in
which all races were treated equally and fairly? If you didn’t know your
religion, would you want religion taught in schools? Without a knowledge of
your personal morality or identity, there would be no reason to institutionalize
personal opinions or turn them into societal laws. We would only value
fairness. He reasonably titled one version of this book on the subject,
“Justice as Fairness.”[6]
This was a breakthrough for
postmodernists and liberals because it provided a rationale for their policy
positions. I don’t think I need to outline here how affirmative action,
reparations, redistribution of wealth, universal healthcare, or LGBTQ+ rights
all fit seamlessly into this framework. Equality was explained as the only way
to create a healthy, functioning society that appealed to the majority while
still protecting the minority.
My first thought when I read
his book was – oh, he’s right. Liberals are right. It makes sense.
There is a lot of value to
Rawls ' ideas and arguments - which he spent years re-framing and defending.
But the more I studied, the more I came to the same conclusion.
It doesn’t work.
There are a number of reasons
for this, and I will try to outline them in four steps.
First:
For the theory to work,
we have to assume that one’s personal moral beliefs are either untrue or less
important than equality. This is because Rawls wants us to abandon our arbitrary,
personal morality in order to consider the good of society as a whole. He calls
this walking through a personal "veil of ignorance."
But that isn’t a “fair”
assumption to make. There is no reason to assume that personal morality is
subservient to his definition of equality. In short, Rawls is asking us to abandon all morality except justice, but he doesn't explain why his "justice" merits the exception.
Second:
There is nothing realistic
about the “original position.” Making equality dependent on a pseudo-homogeneous
identity is deceptive. Once a Muslim or Christian “left” the original position
and rediscovered their personal beliefs, those beliefs might immediately and
reasonably take primacy over views created in “ignorance.” This is because we
aren’t actually homogeneous. So the thought-experiment will always break down
once reality is restored. We would again have to assume that equality matters
more than one’s faith – which Rawls does not attempt to justify and would have
a hard time imposing on the religious in our communities.
Third:
Even if we were to accept the conclusion that the best society is one that prioritizes equality and justice - there remains a problem of enforcement. The only possible way to enforce a pseudo-homogeneous worldview on a heterogeneous society is to find a way to make everyone agree with you.
This returns us to our original dilemma. If people don’t agree – what
do we do? Education is a popular answer, but it still leads to a potentially
dangerous ideological framework that in the end made me abandon liberal theory.
If we must educate society
into our worldview, then we are the new imperialists. We are effectively
attempting to colonize “immoral” segments of society until they learn the
“higher way,” defined as the liberal interpretation of equality. Now, I’m going
to go out on a limb here and push this example because I think it matters.
While imperialism is a trigger
word, is there something wrong with educating people on moral issues? For
example – to make this clear – is there anything wrong with spending government
money to better educate men to not sexually harass women?
No. I don’t think there is
anything wrong with that. But it does need to be understood – lest we fall into
hypocrisy and miss the point – that when we told indigenous people in other
countries that they needed to convert to Christianity, we were doing the same
thing. I mean to say – education is in and of itself a sort of self-declared
moral and intellectual superiority.
In the case of men and sexual
assault, that seems a justifiable intervention. In other cases, it sounds like
ideological tyranny and colonial subjugation that ignores cultural subtexts.
Such a fine line.
Fourth (and finally):
If we accept that education is a form of moral supposition (at least in the realm of politics), then the push for liberal “equality” is just a smokescreen for the same sentiments that motivate conservatives:
Individual morality.
Despite the unbiased intentions of the “original position,” its very creation was
a moral supposition that inherently eliminated opposition without
rationale. Why should one abandon their personal morality in order to
discover truth? Rawls never answered that question. He simply assumes
his version of justice is truth.
This is the problem of the
original position. It eliminates all moral doctrines except for
its own (equality as the highest virtue). But there is no clearly delineated
argument as to why. The original position itself is never justified. That
hypocrisy leads to a similarly unjustifiable tendency for ideological control
because it assumes its own moral superiority.
Let me provide an example of this:
In around 2004, when George Bush was calling for a ban on same-sex
marriage, one of the conservative arguments in support of the ban was that SSM
was a “slippery slope” to sexual liberation. They believed that justifying same
sex marriage would then lead to future justification of sexual “immorality”
including incest and eventually pedophilia. The rationale behind this, of
course, deals with conservative thought about the moral boundaries of sexual
intercourse – arguments that stem from their belief in natural law, God, or
tradition, etc…
I recently saw a twitter post
critiquing this idea by stating quite decidedly, “When someone sees a slippery
slope between same-sex marriage and bestiality or pedophilia, that’s a pretty
good indication that they view marriage as a pairing between a man and his
sex-object, not a loving bond between two consenting adults of sound mind.”[7]
The problem with the post, of
course, was that the theoretical conservative who “equated” same-sex marriage
with pedophilia was coming from a premise that the moral subject in question
was whether sexual activity has moral boundaries. Our liberal friend, however,
was assuming an entirely different premise. For him, the moral subject in
question was simply consenting adults. If consent were given, it was moral.
Without consent, it was not.
By re-framing the moral fears of conservatives who probably wouldn't question the importance of consent, the man was in effect saying – “there is only one moral issue here. And the answer is obvious.” He shifted the grounds of the moral discussion to fit his personal comprehensive doctrine in direct violation of the original position. What I mean to say is – he attempted to codify his personal morality while invalidating the possibility that someone might have a different moral code.
One might wonder why consent
is the moral high ground for this individual - an opinion that he does not
defend and seems to assume is inherent, but for which he never in his post
offers a rationale. In this way, conservatives are disadvantaged because while
they could offer a rationale for consent (probably dealing with freedom,
agency, or natural law), there is no point in doing so because they agree on
it. Thus they are handily excluded from the discussion that does concern them –
sexual liberation.
This is a problem.
In short, liberal morality is
one that promulgates a sense of love, unity, and equality while simultaneously
undermining the very idea of ideological freedom that enabled them to assert
those conclusions. You can’t claim true equality in practice by mandating
ideological thought. But if the original position is to function at all -
that's exactly what must happen. This paradox makes the core of liberal
thought both contradictory and impractical.
The result is that liberals
have unintentionally created a dangerous dichotomy for themselves. Either their
ideological framework is accepted by all or it collapses. I do not mean to sound
extreme here. But equality achieved through a "veil of ignorance"
will inherently crumble under the weight of a morally diverse world once we put
aside the original position and step back into reality. This means that the
only option for liberals is to tighten their control of political discourse in
order to mandate their particularly ideology.
They need homogeneity to
survive. More clearly, they must enforce homogeneity to survive.
The last point is where the
dangers reside. If we want to preserve true political equality in a way that defends and protects both majorities and minorities, we can't
assume or expect "equality" or sameness of belief. While liberals
have branded themselves as the current, moral defenders of certain minority
groups, the unstable nature of their defense could just as easily turn them
against a minority if such a group falls outside their definition of equality.
This is the reason religious
conservative are afraid. While the liberal vision would in theory treat
religious and nonreligious groups equally - the fact that personal morality is
already eliminated from public discourse (in the original position) is
antithetical to the core motivation of religious conservatives. It re-defines
equality in a way that inherently excludes their ideologies from being
considered as true or viable. The liberal version of equality presupposes moral
superiority without allowing opponents a chance to defend themselves.
Furthermore, liberals may feel the need to vilify any opposition because its very existence is counter to their version of
the good society. Equality as defined by the original position becomes another
version of enforced homogeneity. I am not trying to defend conservatives here,
and I think historically many have fallen into the same trap. What I am
asserting is that modern liberal thought threatens the very nature of pluralism
and its essential need to preserve freedom of conscience.
If we ignore the natural moral
conundrums of a diverse society and simply impose our personal standards
without allowing for disagreement or argumentation – then the framework that we
have created for policy becomes inherently oppressive.
I am speaking to both
conservatives and liberals, but I tend to think liberals are more in
danger of self-deception on this point. However, both sides must be willing to
embrace the possibility of error in their own ideologies and accept that other
opinions could inform, if not correct, their own. At the least, we must embrace
that humans will always disagree, and compromise and pluralism were structured
to help us maintain a peaceful and diverse society.[8]
In summary, you cannot impose
a singular ideology without undermining the foundations of a liberal society.
The nation would collapse under the weight of the paradox.
Society would fall
apart.
To me, the beauty of both equality and pluralism lies in their ability to create space for a free exchange of ideas - an open and collaborative search for truth and virtue in a way that builds bridges and opens the doors for knowledge gained from different experiences and backgrounds.
I am not a moral relativist. Virtue matters to me. The philosophical search for truth and the good society matters to me. But I am convinced that pluralism and freedom of conscience are vital to that search. It allows for both human empathy and cooperation. It supports both pragmatism and idealism. But my worry is that liberal progressives will redefine pluralism as a subtle form of ideological subjugation that will stunt rather than discover the good society. If liberals do not check themselves and their moral foundations, that may be exactly what happens.
---
[1] Locke’s Political Philosophy. The Standard
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2005).
[2] There is much written and researched about race, rights, voting and
slavery. Of particular interest to readers might be the justification of the
“three-fifths compromise,” which allowed slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a
person in terms of population. This gave the South more power in House of
Representatives without fear of being outvoted by the minority since (as only
3/5 of a human) slaves were still not allowed to vote. This idea of redefining
the humanity of the minority serves to illustrate the point. A basic study
might begin here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise
[3] Some might claim that liberals are opposed to government
involvement in legislating morality. I believe this is a misinterpretation of
modern liberal thought. An interesting read on the subject of a liberal
“codification of morality,” can be found in a 2008 speech given by Barak Obama
on Race & Religion. Read his full remarks here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4472228&page=1
[4] Burke, Edmund. Speech on the Reform of the
Representation of the Commons in Parliament. The Library of Economics
and Liberty. https://www.econlib.org/book-chapters/chapter-vol-4-miscellaneous-writings-speech-on-the-reform-of-the-representation-of-the-commons-in-parliament/
[5] I am being a bit lax in my treatment of progressivism here.
It is beyond the scope of this essay to delineate between progressivism and
liberalism. Some liberal progressives assert the need for moral relativism
(which I hinted at in this paragraph) and see it as the very nature of
pluralism. I have chosen to focus on current liberal social policy that rejects
moral relativism. However, there is internal conflict between the two strains
of thought. The progressive determination to condemn imperialism for its moral
absolutism, for example, while simultaneously rejecting cultural traditions
such as patriarchy, illustrate this conflict. What matters for the purpose of
this essay is that modern liberal thought – stemming from John Rawls’ theory of
justice – sought to reject relativism in favor of the moral superiority of
equality and justice. To the modern liberal progressive, education is only
imperialist if it is unequal or unjust. An interesting read on the
contradictions that stem from the internal debate between liberals and
progressives can be found here: https://newdiscourses.com/2019/12/progressive-privilege-john-rawls-moral-relativism/.
[6] Rawls, John. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge,
Mass. : Harvard University Press, 2001.
[7] Tweet was taken from a Facebook post for Feminist
News. The URL is found here: https://www.facebook.com/feministnews.us/photos/a.110963062584254/1340833216263893/
[8] It may be of interest to readers that, while a defender of
pluralism, I am a staunch moral absolutist. There is a fine line between
pragmatically accepting that interests will always conflict versus believing
that this implies an absence of truth or the possibility of discovering truth.
A simpler way to say this might be that my idealist pluralism believes that
homogeneity is possible through compromise and empathy (indeed my absolutism
supports the need for empathy as a universal truth), while a progressive
pluralist would reject absolutism as impossible or incorrect (albeit not
absolutely impossible or incorrect). Pragmatically speaking, this delineation might not matter to
anyone outside of myself.
Comments
Post a Comment