Jupiter Images
Michael Sandel is Professor of Government at Harvard University. He made his name in philosophical circles with the publication of his book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press, 1982). In order to understand why this was so important, one needs to understand something of the debate of the time.
In 1971, another Harvard Political Philosopher, John Rawls, published A Theory of Justice (Oxford University Press, 1972). It is widely accepted that this book revivified the tradition of political thinking known as ‘liberalism’. This is connected to, but not identical with, the belief characteristic of political parties that have words such as ‘Liberal’ in their title. Liberalism is difficult to define, but one part of it, and this looked to be part of Rawls’ liberalism, is that each of us is able to stand back from our roles and commitments, in order to evaluate those roles and commitments. That is, we can think of ourselves as free from such things as our religious commitments, or our commitments as members of a certain community (whether narrowly defined, such as a particular club or broadly defined, such as a particular nationality) and (i) question these roles and commitments, and (ii) think about how these roles and commitments fit in with other people’s different roles and commitments. That is, we can take a neutral stance towards them and think about how they fit into our lives, and, more importantly, into a society.
Clearly there is a place for this kind of thinking and the result of it may well be that we, as individuals, decide that membership of a community is a good thing, and that place should be found for being members of a community both within our lives and within a society. Sandel argued that there was something suspicious about this. Can we really think of ourselves as individuals without any of these commitments, and, from there, evaluate these commitments? As he put it, "On Rawls’ view, a sense of community describes a possible aim of antecedently individuated selves, not an ingredient of their identity as such," (Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982, p. 64). That is, can we even think of ourselves as individuals without these commitments?
An example might help. There would be something frankly odd about a family sitting around the dinner table, and one of them saying: "Right. Let us think of ourselves not as Father and Mother, or son and daughter but just as bare individuals without these roles and then take a look at ourselves and see what we think." These things are not options (like clothes) which we can take off and put back on again; they are part of what we are.
It is controversial whether liberals (including Rawls) are really committed to an objectionable version of this very individualistic claim. However, you can start to see a broad dividing line here: between those who think that things (let me just leave it vague about what ‘things’ are), can be thought of as a matter of choice, and those who think there are all sorts of important things (broadly those that make up who we think we are), that either cannot, or should not, be thought of as a matter of choice.
This divide has effects further down the line: between those who think protecting individual freedom of choice is important, and those who think that there are matters that should be protected (importantly, our communities), and are not up for choice; between those who think what is good for us is simply the sum of all the goods of different people and those who think we can appeal to a ‘common good’. Sandel’s work inspired what is broadly known as ‘communitarianism’, although that label applies to a whole variety of positions some of which are closer to Sandel’s original ideas than others.
It is 27 years since Liberalism and the Limits of Justice was published. Having Professor Sandel as the Reith lecturer gives us all a chance to hear how his thoughts have developed, and how the conflicting views of liberalism, and those who think liberalism has some important limits, have played out. In particular, the Reith Lectures are concerned with how ideas of morality and community are part, or should be part, of contemporary political debate. This demonstrates how Sandel’s work has been enormously influential both within philosophy and political theory, but also in contemporary politics, where particular parties, and even particular policies of particular parties, are identified as being on either one or other side of the liberalism/communitarian divide.
Login or Register to post comments
Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
MATHIEU CORREA DE SA has started a thread discussing The limits of liberalism.
Brilliantly challengieng and thought inspiring, and absolutely topical.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
I’m not sure what topicality you have in mind Mathieu Correa De Sa, but I can certainly see the topicality with reference to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War.
It is interesting to see liberalism defined as a political employment of the super-ego, but my personal understanding of the term remains inexorably welded to the idea of personal freedom rather than any method of analysis, self or otherwise. In liberal utopia, everyone would have complete personal freedom without even the need for the rider about impingement on the freedoms of others because, in liberal utopia, no such impingement would ever happen in any case. In the real world, the threat to liberalism comes not from unintentional impingement on the freedoms of others, but from malevolent action that might be divided into two categories; those born of open political opposition to personal freedoms; and those born of covert intentions to manipulate for personal advantage. The political unresolvable for liberalism is that, beyond impotent hand-wringing, any attempt to defend liberalism against such forces will inevitably conflict with the very principles it claims to stand for, and thus be open to accusations of hypocrisy.
So liberalism is forced into a series of unsatisfactory compromises between upholding personal freedoms, and defending those freedoms against the forces that seek to destroy them. Inevitably, as the malevolent forces seek to test and challenge the standing boundaries, the unsatisfactory nature of those boundaries is thrown into constant relief. Without suggesting that any action in defence of liberalism is justified, it certainly seems to me that anyone who believes in liberalism as the political system most likely to produce the greatest collective happiness and security, need to keep their eyes on the prize. Yes, certainly, there is a need to keep a very close watch on where the boundaries are drawn and when they are exceeded. There have been clear cases in recent history when those boundaries have been exceeded. Thus, the fact of the Chilcot inquiry might be seen as necessary, and I for one would defend it against the charges that it is toothless or lacks the required vigour. But my own experience makes it seem to me that there is something close to a universal belief that the Iraq War was wrong, that the political leaders involved behaved dishonestly, and that the whole episode is a clear case of an unacceptable breach of those liberal boundaries. It is a certainty that I don’t share.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
I've just been thinking more about freedom of the individual as in the uphoric liberal ideology and came across another problem:
If every individual has freedom to be, act, do and think how he liked, would this not result in an anarchic state?
It also reminded me of a question I pondered as a sociology student: 'Do the individuals make society' or 'Does society make the individuals'. We are socialised by conditioning by parents, peers, education, culture, law and government policies in order to fit nicely into the 'norm' of society. Personally, therefore, I think society makes the individual as much as we'ed prefer to think of ourselves as 'free' individuals. However, I also think that individuals need to be told what is right and wrong by society or society would have no structure and so would fail.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hello again Mr Natton,
Is 'liberalism' then a two sided coin? For example, the Catholic church wanting to keep homosexuals out but the discrimation rights making this a conflict of interests. To be liberally ideal we would like to satisfy both parties rights but in reality this is not possible. Again, would it be the liberal ideal to let people choose assisted death but if given this right then other people would not be happy as 'thou shalt not kill'.
Am I getting it right? So, as a liberal how should leaders decide.
With this line of thought it becomes apparent that liberalism is therefore, an unrealistic ideology as it would never be able to give the rights of freedom to every individual, only maybe to the majority.
With the wars in Iraq and Afganistan alot of conflicts of interest are found in a whole manner of areas of thought surrounding them. How would a liberal view these topics. The west wants freedom from terror and the islamic terrorists want freedom to act on their revenge of what they see as a war on islam by the west. Some people here think we shouldn't be there at all, some whole heartedly believe we should. What would a liberal say?
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
I think this is the crux of the issue. Liberalism as a doctrine relies on the proposition that freedom is something which can be added to ad infinitum, until "liberal utopia". But in practice every freedom to commit an act - even where it doesn't impinge directly on another's situation - deprives someone else of the freedom to live in a society/world where that act is not permitted.
What we're left with is striking our preferred balance between permissiveness and coercion, in effect just another set of humdrum political choices subject to personal morality/taste, social outlook or partisan preference. The problem with liberalism as a purported political theory is that it seeks to dress up what are really just subjective policy choices as a logically coherent, self-contained philosophy.
A "liberal utopia" in which no right could be imagined as harming another by removing freedom from that right would in practice have to be a world of absolute uniformity of thought, ironically the very opposite of the world of unlimited individual expression and fulfilment which liberalism proclaims as its purpose.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Firstly, butterfly, I must hesitate to set myself up as someone giving you some kind of definitive account of liberalism. It is clear that all I can give you is my understandings. The best understanding usually emerges from discussions, which is why both of us must hope for more contributions like dave p’s which offer a different perspective.
So, of course, my last post on the other thread was, as you spotted, an over simplification. I was really just outlining the first principles. The point, of course, is that this world is not just an ‘every man for himself’ (or woman for herself) situation. We live in a collective – a society – which operates to the greater good of all of us. For that collective to work, we all have to stay within reasonable boundaries, but ideally, those boundaries are self-imposed for the greater good, rather than externally imposed by some higher authority. What that works out as in practice, again as you observed yourself, is a series of rights and obligations. And it is a much vaunted notion that with every right comes a responsibility. So along with the right to drive a car (a fine example of the benefits of the collective, something that clearly could not have been achieved without it) comes the responsibility to drive in a manner that does not put other road users at unnecessary risk. And if you break that code, you are at risk of losing your right to drive. It isn’t particularly within the tenets of liberalism to deny another their right to drive a car, but it is justified on the basis of that individual’s irresponsible behaviour, and the risks it posed for the rights and freedoms of others.
Equally, clearly, it is patently illiberal to incarcerate other people. Again that is justified in a liberal system on the basis that those individuals behaved selfishly to their own benefit and contrary to the common interest, and that such behaviour, if it became widespread enough, could risk destroying the collective all together.
This, I think, is what Derek Matravers’ article at the head of this thread was talking about when it mentioned the need for us to stand back and analyse our roles and commitments. If we don’t, it tends towards a more selfish society, where the freedoms of the individual are more difficult to uphold. Genuinely universal freedom is only possible if every member of the society understands their obligations and polices themselves in the fulfilment of those obligations.
Put like that, it does sound hopelessly idealistic and impractical. But I would suggest to you that something approaching that idea is the only reason that western democratic societies work at all. Certainly, there are members of all such societies that shamelessly ignore their obligations. But the overwhelming majority understand them, understand the reason for them, and willingly adhere to them, otherwise the whole idea simply wouldn’t work.
And at that level, it really is something close to being as simple as the way I stated it. Most people understand the most fundamental principle that they are free to exercise their own free will, but that they are not free to impose their will on another. The example you give of the Catholic church and homosexuals is actually a very good one. Every member of our society is perfectly free to practice Christian Catholic faith if they wish to, but none can be forced to do so. Equally, homosexuals are free to practice their sexuality, and no-one has the right to deny them that. The only problem comes if a homosexual wants to be a member of the Catholic church. But that is not a problem for liberalism, it is only a problem for the Catholic church. Liberalism’s position is clear. The homosexual is free to practice their sexuality and not even the pope has the right to say that they cannot. That is no denial whatever of the freedoms of the pope or any other member of the Catholic church, because it is clear that, under liberalism, those freedoms do not extend to imposing their will on someone else.
Which is actually quite illuminating for the matter of Sharia Law. When I think about it, the point is exactly the same. Any individual is free to practice their Islamic faith if they wish to, and if they themselves wish to impose on themselves the guidelines contained in Sharia Law, that is their own choice, their right, their freedom. But they have no right to impose those restrictions on anyone else, and if Sharia Law says that the freedoms of women are to be restricted, that cannot be implemented in a liberal society.
None of this gets us anywhere in discussing the ‘war on terror’ and its relevance to the phrase ‘the limits of liberalism’, except in as much as the context it provides. But if I try to cover it all in a single post, apart from the post being too long, it doesn’t really make for a discussion, which is what we are trying to do. So lets see if this generates any responses first before we move on.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
The problem here is determining who's shown themselves least fit to use the international highway. I'd say it's the very powers that proclaim their role as judge, jury & executioner. The global driver licensing agency isn't working, not least because it's dominated in practice by the most careless and destructive users on the wreckage-strewn scene.
I'd add that it's debatable whether the international system is legitimately a collective: in the twentieth century we developed various multilateral institutions, but the setup remained one of national sovereignty except where explicitly pooled (eg the EU). It's a handful of roadhogs who've unilaterally rewritten the rules to legitimise their own misconduct rather then writing it off as self-interested power politics as in the past.
This seems contradictory: presumably if some Muslim women decide that their identification as Muslims outweighs any loss of freedom as women within Islam, to the extent that they prefer the constraints of voluntary association in a sharia system, that would be their right and their freedoms could be accordingly curtailed within that voluntary arrangement so long as it remained voluntary?
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
After reading both the two last posts I found myself needing to learn more about what liberalism is before having anything to add (mostly because I either agreed with or could see the view of everything said by Mr Natton and Mr P). I found some interesting quotes taken from a book called 'Democracy' by Sanford Lakoff (1999). (Sorry it's a bit out of date but I was just looking it up from my own bookshelf). Anyway the quotes:
'democracy itself poses problems for it's own maintenence because it's very success in empowering people can make the social system more difficult to manage.' (P281)
'everything depends on how well citizens regulate their own lives, how wisely they choose representatives......and whether they have the good sense to endorse policies that promote the general welfare, rather than only their own narrow and immediate self-interest.' (p281).
'The very emphasis on the right to choose puts burdens on individuals which some may not be able to support. The incapable may find psychological security in conforming to group norms.' (p284)
So far so good. However, I then came across the following passage which seemed a bit eggagerated and I felt a little insulted by it. So, because I didn't like it much I chose to tell myself it was just wrong. Then I remembered that some facts are facts whether we choose to acknowledge them or not. So, when I finally get on with quoting it and your eyes pass over the passage could you tell me if you think it's an accurate analysis or not:
'The more successful is democratization, the more it tends to produce strong desires for personal and sub-group autonomy and resistance to everything that smacks of external control. The spirit of democratic self-reliance readily becomes a kind of principled rebelliousness, especially among the young. For some, even the resort to violence becomes a perverse expression of the freedom of the individual from social control. A breakdown of the traditional family structure follows from the unwillingness of the individual to make commitments which are thought to compromise freedom and from the unwillingness of children, as though it were a matter of democratic principle, to respect the authority of parents and school. The weakness of family structures leads to an increase in single-parent families in which children do not receive the guidance they need to become responsible adults.' (p283)
I think this is just riddiculous how can anyone jump from freedom to single-parent families. Please tell me I'm not misguided in disregarding this statement or our future's not very 'orange' is it!
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
It seems odd that the writer attributes "conforming to group norms" to inability to exercise individual choice, but then goes on to criticise the nonconformity implicit in single-parent families. So conformity is bad, and nonconformity is... bad? Perhaps limited nonconformity is acceptable, eg preferring Omo to Daz as a lifestyle choice.
To be fair, it's unclear from the wording whether his target is single-parent families generally, or specifically "[those] single-parent families in which children do not receive the guidance they need". But it seems a sloppy piece of writing.
I think the whole argument is flawed though because it attributes erosion of traditional structures to nominal freedom rather than to material factors. Children don't disobey parents or school because of their system of government, they do it because they're children and because they're surrounded by a myriad of counter-propositions likely to be economic rather than institutional in origin. Similarly men always had the freedom to walk out on their families, as many have done over the centuries: not only is it now less likely to leave dependants starving or on the street, but the remaining parent may prefer the spouse-free life available in an affluent society but lacking in past times.
I actually find the alleged link between personal autonomy and resort to violence still more jarring. Violent individuals have always been with us, but the most murderous episodes in history have been those where individuals have subordinated personal responsibility to collective bloodlust. It isn't the defiant nonconformist who'll burn your village and slaughter everyone in sight, it's the unquestioning drone who'll go along just because it's the path of least resistance: "I was only following orders."
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Thank you Mr P. I do feel a lot better now. I find it difficult to question something if it's in a text book but now I see, with your support, that I was right to do so. It was a sloppy piece of writing wasn't it. I think I ought to get rid of that particular book.
I also agree with your point that 'the drones' are more dangerous than the deeply angered individual because they can easily detach themselves from moral obligations of right and wrong and simply say 'these were my orders'. Is this the sort of thinking behind the £86 million to dissuede afgans from working under taliban orders as they are doing it to earn money to feed their families rather than having deeply extremist and angry motives. That if we put money into farming and trade roots they can earn their crust without killing western soldiers?
Yes, I can see the logic behind this, as I have demonstrated above, but I cannot help being deeply angered and hurt that we give such a vast amount of money when we have serious shortages here in Britain. What about our shortfall in the pension pot, for example. People shouldn't have to use the house they own to pay for care when they wanted their child to inherit it and worked hard all their life to be able to give something to their child.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Firstly, we do need to draw a distinction between liberalism and democracy. Is it possible to have a liberal regime that isn’t democratic? Doesn’t seem likely does it? But it is certainly possible to have a democracy that isn’t liberal. Apart from the accusations of illiberal behaviour that might be levelled against any modern regime that likes to style itself ‘liberal’, the history of these two ideas makes that point clear enough. Democracy was invented by the ancient Greeks. Of course, there was nothing like a universal franchise in ancient Greece, it was a limited democracy of the elite, but it founded the basic idea on which modern democracy is based. And the heart of that idea is not just one person, one vote, but more particularly that there is a leadership who make decisions on behalf of the collective, a leadership that are answerable to that collective for those decisions and their consequences.
Liberalism is a far more recent ideal. I suppose it is something that was born out of that period known as the Enlightenment and its foundation as an ideology was marked in particular by the American War of Independence and the French Revolution. The subsequent history of those two countries makes it clear that genuine liberalism was a long way from being practiced at that time. It is only after all the political turmoil of the 19th century, the devastating events of the first half of the 20th century, and the ending of the era of colonialism that we have begun to approach something that might be worthy of the name ‘liberal democracy’. And after a lengthy ideological battle with a ‘communism’ that in its totalitarianism was every bit as distant from genuine Marxist ideals, liberalism now finds itself in a new, and dangerous battle with religious fundamentalism. And the truth is that, in terms of raw power, liberal regimes are in by far the stronger position. But the use of that power is almost inevitably contrary to those liberal ideals and the real danger to liberalism is not external. From my viewpoint, liberalism is in danger of collapsing inwards from the unresolveable of upholding liberal ideals while protecting those ideals from malevolent forces that seek to destroy them. That, it seems to me, is the key limit of liberalism.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
There are quite a few posts on various threads in various forums where people have seen fit to quote ‘the dictionary definition’ of this or that word, in apparent support of some point they mean to make, and I have never quite understood what it is meant to add to the discussion. It’s a little like occasions when you challenge some assertion that somebody has made and they insist that it must be true, because it said so in this book or that publication, as if that makes that truth absolute. Only the pope is infallible, and that should tell you all you need to know about infallibility.
We did get in to a discussion about what liberalism is early in this thread, but it was just groundwork, it was never really what this thread was meant to be about. The thread was about the limits of liberalism. Derek Matravers’ article at the head of this thread referred to an earlier book by Michael Sandel titled Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. I confess that I have not read it, but I am projecting that it must have been suggesting that a justice system cannot entirely regulate a liberal society, that for the most part, it must come down to self regulation. Matravers, I am then supposing, in his article sought to turn that around to discuss the limits of liberalism as the limitation of personal freedoms in the interests of broader society. My personal response to that phrase centred on the paradox that for liberal regimes to defend themselves almost inevitably involves the bending, if not the outright abandonment of their own principles.
That, it seems to me, is what we have been discussing, and all any of us can do is bring our own understanding to that discussion. As Matravers says ‘Liberalism is difficult to define…’ For me, dictionary definitions have no particular relevance.
And my feeling, dave p, is that the failures of liberalism that you perceive are more a question of the reality of how it is practiced rather than anything inherent in its principles. Perhaps you would have a case to say that those failures are an inevitability of liberalism’s practice; that however fine its principles, it cannot but fail in its practice. But then I might also suggest to you that the completely egalitarian society you advocate is a similar utopian pipe-dream. I don’t seek to suggest that our society is not riven with very correctable inequalities, and it is true that those things will always undermine our justification to call ourselves liberal. But I do dispute the idea that the fact of some members of our society living in more privileged circumstances than others is in any way inherently illiberal.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
I don’t want to seem pedantic, but social philosophies are not like scientific theories. I didn’t mean to contrast the political practice of liberalism with some ‘theoretical’ notion. Social philosophies start with some basic principles. Governments that profess to be adherents of that philosophy are faced with the challenge of putting those principles into practice.
So the foundation of liberalism is the idea of the freedom of the individual. As our unregistered friend pointed out, there are some other principles about parliamentary governance and non-violent modification of the existing rules, but the heart of it is personal freedom. That includes the freedom to make use of one’s own abilities to improve one’s own situation and the freedom to enjoy the fruits of any success in achieving that end. Clearly, if all members of a society are to enjoy that freedom, then they must have equal opportunity for it. Thus, I think it is reasonable to assert that equality of opportunity is a liberal ideal. I think it is quite accepted that social mobility is a key indicator of genuine liberal practice. That means equal access to quality of education, health care, as you and I discussed before equality of access to justice, one might add access to the capital that is the foundation of entrepreneurial endeavour. Therefore, it is reasonable to see inequalities of those kinds as illiberal. As liberalism is practiced in the United States and in the United Kingdom, the bald reality is that huge inequalities of those things do exist and constitute failures of the governments of those countries to practice true liberalism. I feel less confident to make that outright assertion about other Western European governments and other liberal regimes around the world, but my feeling is that no such society is free of those kind of inequalities. It is a matter for debate whether that is because such a thing is practically unachievable or whether it is just that no government has yet achieved it.
Communism, I think I am right in saying, is not actually founded on the idea of absolute equality of all members of society, but rather on the communal ownership of property. But it is the system we associate with the idea of absolute equality, whatever the reality of inequalities that have existed in its practice, certainly in the two most obvious cases of The Soviet Union and China. I’m not sure whether you would say that it is a liberal viewpoint or a capitalist viewpoint, but the case is put that free societies encourage an entrepreneurialism that leads to greater prosperity for society as a whole. Communism demonstrated that all it achieved was an equality of austerity for all. I dare say that you won’t agree with that dave p, but endeavouring to keep this discussion philosophical rather than political, I suggest that liberalism only requires equality of opportunity, but is quite at peace with the circumstance that some individuals lead more comfortable existences than others.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Ken, you may be shocked but I don't fundamentally disagree with any of that. I'd be rather more drawn to a liberalism that prioritised equality of opportunity (and yes, I don't mean equality as such) rather than seeing it as its own consequence: I think we've seen enough in recent decades to conclude that universal opportunity simply isn't the inevitable or even most likely outcome of an emphasis on economic freedom rather than social intervention.
Unregistered, liberalism's been subject to as many theoretical tweaks and interpretations as most "isms". I was just addressing the outline offered earlier: if you want to offer a more rigorous formulation I'll be just as happy discussing that.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Ken
''the bald reality is that huge inequalities of those things do exist and constitute failures of the governments of those countries to practice true liberalism''
We are discussing personal liberties.
Is it not a personal liberty that one can provide for one's family to the best of one's abilities? As we all have varying abilities, then those abilities create inequalities to start with. Nothing to do with the government.
Is it not a personal liberty that one can provide the best education to one's children that one is able? Then by definition, those children will be in a better position than children who's parent provides a lesser education.
Inequality exists [even from birth], and any government intervention can only try to mange the extremes. Within the extremes there will be inequalities, and they will be relatively 'huge'', whatever huge means quantitatively.
Hi Dave p
I used this below definition to address your assertion that the greatest threat to liberalism is its own growing intolerance of diversity, at home and globally.''
''a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. ''
I would maintain that liberalism is liberalism is liberalism, and that any corruption or tweaking of such is not liberalism. As I said, calling something liberalism, does not make it liberalism.
Universal opportunity is not the same as equality of opportunity, and in fact is much fairer and achievable. We should all aim for the fair treatment of everyone on the planet, but equal treatment is not required, nor recommended nor possible.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
''If society extends a nominal freedom to you but social circumstances beyond your control constrain your opportunity to exercise it in comparison to others', are you enjoying fair treatment from that society?''
Surely society and social circumstances are the same thing. Don't you mean personal circumstances?
It is the personal circumstances that constrain one's opportunity to exercise that nominal freedom. If it was true what you say, then there would never ever be any rags to riches stories. But there are, so despite inequality within a society, it is possible through personal circumstances to overcome such inequality.
I picked up the expression universal opportunity from your previous post, and I think it is a much better term than equal opportunity. We have discussed equal opportunity, and I have tried to demonstrate how I think it can never be achieved.
You may say that we should still strive for it, and I would contend that it is better to go for something achievable which will benefit a society- i.e. universal opportunity, rather than striving and failing to achieve something that is unachievable.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
You seem to want to deny people the right to do the best for their families. As a father, I want to provide the best possible start in life for my children. That will create inequality because some parents have better abilities than others .
Unless you made everyone on the planet into a cloned version of one individual, you cannot achieve what you want.
All that society can do is try to dampen down the extremes of any inequality from a fiscal point of view in trying to re-distribute wealth. Political systems, with varying political and philosophical idealogies have tried and failed to do anything more, because each generation will have some with greater abilities than others, who wish their good fortune to be retained within the family and passed on to their children.
If I am to be denied the right to give my children the best possible start in life that I can achieve, based upon my personal circumstances, then I am being denied, what I consider to be, a basic human right. That to me is not worth a spit.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
It seems to me, unregistered guest, that you make a lot of inaccurate assertions about what dave p and I have asserted or do assert. Clearly there are some fundamental differences between your view point and mine, and between your viewpoint and dave p’s. I always have doubts about any value in pursuing these details to the nth degree, particularly for any third party readers of this thread. However, let me make at least one attempt to defend my position. It is an important point of reference to understand that I, at least, was not intending to forward my own political beliefs but was merely intending to philosophise about liberalism.
So, firstly, however convinced you are that these things are absolute, I am equally convinced that they are not. I don’t accept that there is any failure of clarity about what is being discussed. It is clear enough to me that everyone involved understands that perfectly well. Your dictionary definition approach only serves to straight jacket the discussion, and as always, the question is, which king in which palace decided that only that particular definition was valid? I can only urge you, unregistered guest, to take a little time to read the article that is linked to in the first post on this thread. Derek Matravers nicely demonstrates the point about how open to interpretation the concept of liberalism is.
dave p and I had already largely agreed (it seems to me) that absolute equality, whether achievable or not, does not produce the best result for collective happiness and security. We were forwarding an idea that only equality of opportunity is a valid aim for a liberal society. That, it seems to me, makes all the room necessary for you to make the best that you can for yourself and for your offspring. If the result is that you and your offspring live a more comfortable existence than the majority in your society, that, I asserted and dave p accepted, is not in any way contradictory to liberal principles.
You appear to be asserting that not even equality of opportunity is a valid aim for liberal society, primarily on the basis that it is not achievable. I do not accept that it is any way proven to be unachievable. Certainly, I accept it will not be achieved easily or quickly. Perhaps perfect equality of opportunity, whether achievable or not, will never actually be achieved. But improvements in that direction are patently achievable, and, I philosophise, for any liberal society worthy of the name, a striving towards that goal is an absolute pre-requisite. I don’t see how a striving toward that goal in any way damages anyone’s personal freedoms. It only serves to make sure that those freedoms are available to all.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Ken
Well the discussion spun off into equality, as Dave p said that without equality of opportunity, all other aspects of liberalism did not matter. So, I think that we are still on track here. My point is, that it is all very well having lofty ideals, but when we start to look at the implementation of those ideals then they are shown as purely idealistic. I am a realist. I have worked around the world, and in a variety of businesses, including government. I have seen deprivation.
My point about liberalism is that it will be corrupted, because its ideals cannot be sustained. Is corrupted liberalism really liberalism? Surely it is something else- fairism perhaps?. I used the education example because Dave p said that we should have equality of opportunity from birth. Education is key in childhood development, and so is a great way to emphasise what we are individually trying to say. We can discuss a specific key part of human endeavour, which I contend shows that inequality does and always will exist. The best we can do is try to iron out some of the kinks.
If I start my child off with a better education, then my child will have better opportunity than a child whose parents do not do so. How can the government's actions stop parents building inequality into the system?
To be equal, each child would have to have exactly the same opportunities regarding education as every other child. Do you really think that can happen? When my children were growing up I went through their homework every night and also gave them separate homework. I spent close to two hours each night working with them. I chose to live in the catchment area of a school with a good record, to which good teachers were attracted.
My children achieved a 1st hons and 2.1 hons hons at uni. How would any government/society equalize the system to provide the same opportunity for other children? I know that if I had not taken the steps that I did re my children, they would not have achieved what they did.
There is a very intersting book called Freakonmics. I do not know if you have read it? In in the authors apply economic modelling and anlysis to subects which are not normally subjected to such scrutiny. In it they studied the academic achievements of children. What was the biggest factor? Their parents.
Life is not fair. The best we can do is make it less unfair, and provide as good a base line of opportunity within a society as pragmatically possible.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Dave p
''I think if it can't happen there's not much having an education system, otherwise what's it really telling us, that better-off kids do better than others? I could do that for a lot less than £80bn a year.''
Let us say that you were able to provide an exact level playing field of education for every child in the UK, what would happen?
Well, firstly, you would have closed the privately funded schools, and the wealthy parents would just send their children to countries where these schools exist. Or they would pay a private tutor to supplement what their child learnt at school.
In addition, I am not alone in supplementing my children's education by the sweat of my brow, I know many parents who do it, and remember it starts at birth or before. Studies show that the way a parent behaves when the child is in the womb, and when it is in infancy, will have a huge impact on that individual. As a result they will get better jobs [I hope] which means earning more money, which they will wish to spend on the upbringing of their children, which might be sending them to a privately funded school in another country.
Ultimately they may emigrate .
Genuinely Dave, I cannot see any way you can provide equality of opportunity. To do so, you need every parent to be as good as every other parent, not smoke when the child in in the womb, sing nursery rhymes when very young, take them to the museum every week, etc etc etc
Education is much, much more than schooling.
As good a formal educational baseline as possible seems the only practical solution. But it will not provide equality of opportunity.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Dave p
''Only if the state system wasn't the best. And they'd be quite right to. Even some of us who might otherwise have had kids took the cost of adequate tuition into account when deciding not to''
To make the system the best would produce a huge tax burden, and then the wealthy would move to another country, and send their children back here for school. So the tax burden would fall on the likes of you and me [if I was still in the UK].
The best implies that there is a best school or schools at the moment, but even there you will see inequality. Private tutors after school hours, additional music and/or language lessons during holidays [both studies seen as ways of developing neural pathways].
In an earlier post I talked about the need for the country to have businesses which matched the educational output of that country and vice versa. But jobs will range hugely. If we educated everybody to the level required for them to be the CEO of a major corporation, it would be a huge waste of the country's resources, because the majority would not and could not achieve that level of job.
The carbon footprint of all those extra school buildings would be immense. The tremendous number of extra teachers would have to be paid triple their existing salaries, which would create a wage spiral, which would both make British commercial output less competitive, and also create inflation.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Dave p
''If that was the best they could do I'd be sorely disappointed. Happily not everybody wants to be a CEO. Not everybody wants to be particularly academic, either. Some of us might want to slum it for a few decades and make use of different experiences. Limited room at the top of the corporate ladder would tend to encourage different choices.''
Then where would be the financial payback? If you are worried about the UK being competitive, then spending substantial amounts on unused education would produce a huge competitive disadvantage. Education, just for the sake of it, is, in reality, unsustainable.
To achieve what you want would increase the tax burden significantly. Then you have to calculate the financial pay-back period. Over what period could you realistically amortise the investment?
What subjects would one specialise in as well to produce a return on the investmentt; Banking? Commodity trading? Derivatives? Broking? The government will have to foster areas where there is globally, maximum value-add to justify having the world's greatest state-sponsored education system.
If you want the wealthiest to emigrate, and for their sucessive generations to be excluded from the UK system, then you are lowering the bar. Whilst some of the wealthiest made it because of family money, a truly significant proportion did not. In addition, the wealthiest are job creators for others. If they go, who are going to be the employers? Companies will move their Head Offices and operations out of the UK. It would be a disaster.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
I don't want the wealthiest to emigrate, I want their taxes - and in that I too would distinguish between those who made it by their own efforts or ingenuity and those who didn't. But letting the richest emigrate and still reap the benefit of a system they're not paying for seems to me the surest way of motivating them to leave, so I wouldn't offer that option.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Dave p
''Not everything's about immediate financial payback.''
If a government spent that much money and raised taxes substantially, then it would be immensely unpopular, and would not be favourites for re-election. Would the next governement do the same, or would it have got to victory on the back of promising tax cuts? Somewhere like China could do it, with its centrally controlled government. No country has done it so far, as far as I know.
''I'd see more room for highly-specialised niche entrepreneurs''
Then the government would have to identify those future niches and skew education to suit. What would those niches be? UK Government already supports Bio-tech companies in and around Cambridge, and those niches just extend the cost base, and therefore taxes, because the pay-back period is even longer [that is if the R & D is successful].
But we already have niche entrepreneurs- I know some. Why don't we have more? Because it is a risky business, unlike working for a big corporation. The best entrepreneurs I know are also not always highly educated, but they do have business acumen, they are street smart. Can't be taught.
What country has most PhDs per head of population? Last time I looked it was Taiwan, but they have the same sort of mix of comapnies as anywhere else. Big corporations et al.
As the majority of jobs in the UK do not require a high degree of education, then having the best education in the world would be a huge waste of resources, because the money spent would not be recouped.
'' highly-educated actors offers additional feedback effects: would such a population still aspire to gratuitous material consumption when there was a life of intellectual and cultural participation to be had? ''
Would they still want good food, expensive clothes, a night at the opera, the fast car etc etc? Well, all the well-educated, and entrepreneurs I know do.
''I don't want the wealthiest to emigrate, I want their taxes - and in that I too would distinguish between those who made it by their own efforts or ingenuity and those who didn't''
Basically you are talking about inheritence tax. One can work all one's life, and yet cannot pass on the benefits to one's children? So what should one do? Spend it all on ''gratuitous material consumption'' as you put it. Or create a trust in the British Virgin Islands, form a shell company, and produce offshore, non-taxable dividends for the children who have now emigrated.
If people are smart enough to be entrepreneurs, then they are smart enough to ensure that their money can go to their children.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
And get a proper name!
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Dave p
''Again, that's UK 2010. If we want to keep basing our economy on jobs that don't take much education, then we're going to find ourselves in deep trouble somewhere down the line because others can do those jobs far cheaper.''
I was talking about jobs like builder, shop staff, cooks, waitresses, engineers, farmers, drivers, publicans, librarians, gardeners, bank staff, mechanics, firemen, interpreters, economists, journalists, designers, etc etc etc.
What motivates people to get better jobs, to undertake better training; it is to achieve the things that they want from life. That includes the visible consumerism that we see, and also wanting to pass on benefits to their next generation. Otherwise, why bother?
''Which makes a mockery of "fairness". I'm sorry, but you can't have both.''
We are genetically programmed for kin selection. We want to look after our own, and provide benefits to our children. Would it be fair if I was unable to do so?
''Which reminds me, didn't you object to exchanges straying off-topic?'
Actually I think it was Ken. However, agreed it has gone off topic albeit through a natural progression of the discussion. As it now seems to be just the two of us left, we can carry on, or switch to a new thread. Anyone else out there ???
''And get a proper name!''
Getting a name- it may not be proper.
Let me give you some background. My father was one of eight. His father in turn was pretty useless, and died before my father was in his teens. All his brothers went down the coal mines. Having left school at 14, he was too young to, so he worked where he could, and paid for himself to go to nightschool, where he learnt to be a bricklayer. Eventually he started his own building business, and worked around 100 hours per week. The money he earned, he invested in property to protect his family. He is not a fan of inheritance tax.
The UK economy, like all other economies has to balance what it can afford, with what it wants to achieve. Look at the problems Greece is in. To do so, you need to decide what levels of education are appropriate. Everybody is guaranteed an education to GCSE level. It is not the same education everywhere, as it will depend upon teachers, fellow pupils, parents, and facilities. Government intervention can only try to address two of those issues. Some parents will always want to give their child an advantage versus the competition.
Name coming.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Dave p
''Perhaps we need to consider whether a society of ever wider social disparity, economic precariousness and wasted potential is such a benefit, even for the haves.''
Well, everyone has the right to an education to GCSE, and up to A levels, if they show the potential. There will always be better opportunities for some than for others. I read that more attractive looking people are generally more successful than unattractive ones. So an unfair advantage built in.
''I'm not! At least I don't seem to be. ''
Kin selection at the biological level is a desire to retain the genetic material of that lineage. It can of course be modified by the move away from closer family and tribal groupings.
I understand why you want equality, but it seems that you want to attack the top-end rather than just improve the bottom end. It seems to be the same in every society, not just the UK, unless you are aware of where it is functioning properly.
What steps do you think could be taken to provide equality that you think is missing; how much would it cost; where would the money come from; and what would be the pay-back period.
On the wider question of liberalism, do you not think that some of the features of liberalism that you do not like, are actually features of a political system which is not liberalism in its truest sense. Conservatism springs to mind with the brief reference to the Iraq war.
How's my name looking?
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
In full recognition of the truth that this will be very tedious for everyone else, I do feel the need to defend myself from the suggestion I ever accused anyone of going off topic on this thread. I made full recognition of everyone else’s right to discuss whatever they wanted when I sought to hold on to the resonance that the phrase ‘the limits of liberalism’ had for me in the face of a conversation that was headed in a different direction. And I sought to emphasise that my intention was for a philosophical rather than a political discussion. But I never once sought to proscribe what others could discuss.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Liberalism is an attitude foisted upon the raging public beast by some comfortable upper middle class types.
Study of the chimpanzees will suggest the reality of human ethics.
Equality does not exist and men are not born equal.
The discussion is really about "justice".
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
No, I’m not shocked. And absolutely, equal opportunity does not follow from nothing more than an avowed liberalism. Making any genuine advance in the direction of equality requires not just belief in its value, but commitment and perseverance to policies designed to bring it about. And any significant inequalities will always stand as testament to the failure of a liberal government to live up to its principles.
I watched a harrowing film last night about the forgotten children of Zimbabwe. In point of fact there was nothing so unusual about it. Children live in that kind of grinding poverty all over the world. But not in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was a country with significant resources, with a fully functioning infra-structure and with widespread prosperity. I have seen it suggested that governments actually make little difference to the lives of the people they govern, that most of the forces that drive the things that actually affect people’s lives are beyond the control of mere governments. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is a fairly clear demonstration of the fact that they can certainly make things a lot worse. To make things better, now that’s an achievement.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Dave p
than you need to explain what you think liberalism actually is, because it seems you are creating a strawman argument by redefining liberalism
''My position is that the liberalism we have cannot be correct.''
Hi Ken
''For me, dictionary definitions have no particular relevance.''
I cannot agree with you. Unless we all have the same meaning for liberalism then we cannot have a sensible dicussion about it. If my view of liberalism is different to yours then we will be talking at cross purposes. What benefit would that be?
It seems to me that Dave p is arguing against something which is not liberalism. Therefore we need clarity. As he says-
''but I just don't see that happening in practice''
- in which case, it cannot be liberalism.
What both of you are describing is someehing that is not liberal, but a corruption thereof. If you are going to attack liberalism, then it cannot be something that is a bastardised form of such.
See where I'm headed.
Calling something liberal does not make it liberal.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Its funny how, having just gone back to the article at the head of this thread again, some pennies have dropped and what I have missed reading that article the first few times, suddenly seems so obvious to me now. I suppose that it would be too much to hope for a contribution to this discussion by Mr Matravers himself, and I would hesitate to presume to be speaking for him. But I think I have finally grasped what that article was actually driving at. It may not be easy to understand the distinction between what I said previously and what I am now offering as my understanding of that article, but the heart of it seems to be the conflict of interests between the individual and the community. Perhaps it would be too strong to describe it as a dichotomy, but it seems clear that the suggestion is that the ideal of the freedom of the individual is, at least sometimes, contrary to the needs of the community, and part of the duty incumbent on the individual member of that community is not just to recognise and respect the freedoms of others, but sometimes to sacrifice personal freedom of choice to the greater good of the collective. And it is being suggested that, what we may sometimes interpret as free choice is actually not free choice at all, but fulfilment of a duty incumbent in the role that individual occupies. That, I think, is the limit of liberalism that was being referred to. If everyone simply exercised their own free will, even showing all due respect for the freedoms of others, there would still be no community cohesion and no greater common good. There is a necessity to restrict individual freedom of choice, but I still suggest it is a vital point that the restrictions are, to the greatest extent, self imposed from an understanding of the need for them, rather than imposed by higher authority under pain of sanction for failure to observe them. You can be sanctioned by the justice system for committing a crime, but it is only your conscience and your sense of duty to the greater common good that makes you fulfil your obligations as a family member, a church member, a social group member, a member of an organisation. I can see some cynics saying that company employees only fulfil their obligations because of their wage packet, but I would suggest that in truth, beyond simply doing what our employer wants us to do, most of us do feel some sense of obligation to our colleagues and willingly restrict our personal freedoms to the greater common good of that particular community.
Again, this isn’t really all that relevant to the discussion I was seeking to generate from my own reaction to the phrase ‘the limits of liberalism’, and Mathieu Correa De Sa’s assertion of the topicality of that phrase. (Again, a further contribution from Monsieur Correa De Sa about what topicality he had in mind would be very welcome from me.) I would still like to continue the discussion I started, if others are interested, but having made this realisation, I thought it important to offer that context to the discussion.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
hi
I picked up this quote from Butterfly-
''but I cannot help being deeply angered and hurt that we give such a vast amount of money when we have serious shortages here in Britain.''
Having worked in and visited many countries, I wonder what serious shortages Britain is encountering. Do I need to send food parcels to my parents in deepest darkest Staffordshire?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Here is a link to a webpage listing income per head of poulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
And here is a link to simlar charts based upon parity purchasing power
Not top of the list grant you, and only a rough indication, but not terrible by any stretch of the imagination.
As regards liberalism. No system or intellectual trend will be all encompassing in its ability to match all requirements of a population. Whilst we, I suspect, all value many aspects of liberalism- freedom of speech, equal opportunites, free markets, free trade, secular society etc, it does not mean that everyone will value all aspects. To expect otherwise would be naive.
To echo Ken's point, the perceived rights of the individual, and the perceived rights of the community must necessarily clash even if you do not take those rights to extremes, and who decides what are the community rights in any case? For example, given a choice of three, it is possible that one may be chosen which appeals to less than 50% of the population. Is that one then wrong?
Care to discuss altruism again Ken?
A friend
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
How cryptic. Not sure which of the participants in that altruism discussion you are. In any case, just in case it is what you are suggesting, although I see the connection, it is clear enough to me that altruism and liberalism are quite distinct. Whatever others may have thought, it was always clear to me that the discussions on altruism were about a behaviour that is genetically programmed. Liberalism is a purely intellectual construct.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
In response to our 'guest' contribution I fear his eyes have not tread recently in some of our most deprived areas of England. Maybe he should have been watching the recent series 'Tower blocks of commons' rather than taking for granted that an average statistical 'per capita' is an averageand that, in actual fact, their are many desperate people who would be glad of a food hand out. I would also ask him to spend some time looking at statistics compiled by 'Banardos' concerning the thousands of homeless people, 14,000 each year of which are children fleeing domestic abuse.
Did our guest not watch 'Question Time' last week where desperate audience members feared coming hardships because their steel manufacturing plant 'Corus' is to close, the bread and butter of most of that community. Does our guest not listen to the news as Corus is only one of many large scale companies that has closed in the last 18mths putting many more families on the bread line.
Also, is our guest not intelligent enough to understand that most developing countries (which is where the vast majority of food handouts go to) have governments littered with coruption. At least if you give to British charities you know that your donation will be given to, for example, a 14yr old boy living rough on the streets of London because he'd rather do that than wonder when the next beating from his drugged up mum will come.
You might think my thoughts here are over coloured but I tell you, sir/madam, they are not. About two years ago, 3 children aged 9, 7 and 6 kept appearing in our back garden to play with my step-sons. When it was lunch time they didn't go home. When it was tea time they didn't go home. When I would ask them what time were they supposed to be back they would answer 'when it gets dark'. Those children are in the care system now.
Mr/Mrs Guest, Open your eyes! This list of hardships across England could go on and on and on but I wouldn't like to bore you all in one post. Next time, before being such a sheep and applauding our government's incompetence take a look at what £86 million pounds could do for desperate people here. And I would like to add, in this context, does our guest not see the incompetence? The incompetence driving more people to vote for fascist parties (I am not one of those)when they are living in such hardships with no future to see and all they hear from politicians is that they are giving our money away, at the same time as letting our jobs go, at the same time as letting immigration carry on and on.
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Re: Comments on: "The limits of liberalism"
Hi Dave p
''Per capita GDP isn't an indicator of deprivation.''
Agreed, but on a parity purchasing power basis it does indicate the average amount of money available for purchases per individual. Wealth distribution is another matter entirely. The approach is broad brush, as I was trying to contextualise the position in the UK relative to other countries. If you look at some of the counties high on the list you will encounter Luxembourg and Lichtenstein etc [plus Jersey and Guernsey on one list], where one will automatically see higher income per capita, as one of the businesses those countries are involved in is catering to high net worth individuals.
''But the fact is that we do have to support some people even in Britain if they're to be housed and fed''
Agreed, which is then a question of wealth re-distribution. In this context, Britain is a wealthy country, and any deprivations are not as a result of sending money abroad at the expense of that money being used in Britain. The decisons made are socio-political. And yes, I have visited many high-rises, ex mining villages etc in the past, and there are no doubt some telling stories of hardship, but what is required is not hand-outs, but a sustainable economy that allows employment for all levels of capacity equivalent to the talent pool that is produced by the institutional centres of learning. Easy to say; damn difficult to do.
''I would if they existed in practice (equality of opportunity being the key without which the rest are meaningless except as expressions of sectional privilege). Since they don’t, I don’t.''
Equality of opportunity is a relative thing, it has to be. You cannot have every person on the planet with exactly the same opportunities as every other person on the planet. Idealogically maybe, in the real world- no. However, if we accept that true equality of opportunity cannot exist, then we must still value the other things on the list, such as freedom of speech. I would not call that meaningless.
''And we're happy enough to see our businesses bribe their way into developing-country markets, adding to the problem.''
Bribery and corruption are facts in international business. If British businesses did not compete, then they would become even more ''hopelessly uncompetitive'' as you put it. It may not sit nicely with people on a personal level, but if Britain wants to compete against all the other countries that wish to take its market share, then it must compete on the same terms, otherwise it loses, and the population loses. I know it is unpallatable, but that is how things go.
''what politicians of all parties have done is fail miserably to plan for a high-employment economy that won't be an international laughing-stock in 20 years.''
I think plans were made, but I think they were not the best plans. This then moves nicely into the realms of liberalism and democracy. I work in Greater China, and we can see how well China has been able to plan long-term for a high-employment economy by not having a democracy. A democracy would have been a disaster. In this instance, the people are willing to give up certain individual liberties [broadly speaking], for the greater good of the community. How long it will be sustainable is not clear, of course; but it's working now, for the specific circumstances involved.
Ken's [non-altruistic] friend