Liberalism
(Fred Speaking)

Comment
 

MAIN PATH: John
 
John
Fred
 
 
 

I think we're getting to something basic now. I agree with you that the ideals of political liberalism and our vision of society are at stake here. Following the hate speech issue takes us deeper and deeper into our principles and our institutions until we reach fundamental issues. I agree with you that the nature and viability of liberalism and liberal society is at issue.

But first we've got to decide what the philosophy of liberalism is and what a liberal society looks like. Defining liberalism is tough. Historians have a fairly standard list of writers that they call liberals: John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Leonard Hobhouse, John Dewey, John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and lots of others. But the ideas of these people are different in many ways. Some believe in natural rights, others are utilitarians, and still others base their ideas on a social contract. Some believe in small government and others believe in the welfare state.

How do we construct a definition out of such a diverse list? Do we look for what they have in common? Do we look for a sort of family resemblance? Do we look for themes that gradually develop in various directions? And the problem isn't peculiar to liberalism. How do we construct a definition of any of the great 'isms' like capitalism, socialism, anarchism, or fascism?

Reference: Some of the important texts in the history of liberalism include Locke's Two Treatises of Government, Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Mill's On Liberty and Utilitarianism, Hobhouse's Liberalism, Dewey's Liberalism & Social Action, Rawls' Theory of Justice, and Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. For the concept of a "family resemblance" see Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, Part I, sections 65-67.
Ariadne Home Hate Speech
Bibliography		 Hate Speech
Home