RANSFORD

MODULE 1.40

Contemporary Liberalism

The political theory of contemporary liberalism is significantly shaped by John Rawls. In his seminal works, A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993), Rawls developed influential liberal conceptions of political morality that serve as a foundation for various alternative liberal and non-liberal views. Contemporary liberalism is marked by a more favorable view of state intervention.

In the United States, the term "liberal" typically signifies support for a larger government rather than a minimal one. This evolution arose from the acknowledgment that industrial capitalism introduced new injustices and left many individuals vulnerable to market fluctuations. Influenced by J. S. Mill, the so-called "New Liberals," including T. H. Green, L. T. Hobhouse, and J. A. Hobson, advocated for a broader, "positive" conception of freedom. They argued that true freedom extends beyond mere non-interference; it encompasses personal development and the ability to achieve self-realization. This perspective laid the groundwork for social or welfare liberalism, which recognizes that state intervention, particularly through social welfare programs, can enhance liberty by protecting individuals from societal harms.

The 1942 Beveridge Report in the UK identified five major social issues—want, ignorance, idleness, squalor, and disease—that necessitated such intervention. Contemporary liberals also shifted away from laissez-faire capitalism, influenced by J. M. Keynes' belief that economic growth and stability require some degree of government regulation and management. However, modern liberals' support for government intervention is not unconditional; it primarily focuses on aiding the weak and vulnerable—those unable to advocate for themselves—aiming to empower them to become self-sufficient.

To understand the debates within contemporary liberalism, it is essential to differentiate between the political principles it advocates and the underlying philosophical ideals supporting those principles. Contemporary liberalism’s political principles address the regulation of major social, political, and economic institutions. Key among these principles is the commitment to tolerating diverse ways of living and beliefs, referred to by Rawls as “conceptions of the good.” This toleration manifests in the endorsement of civil and political liberties such as freedom of conscience, speech, association, democratic rights, and protection against discrimination based on race, sex, or sexuality. Additionally, contemporary liberalism strives to reduce deep social and economic inequalities through principles like equal opportunity and policies aimed at fair resource distribution.

While interpretations of the liberal ideals of freedom and equality vary, there are ongoing debates within liberal thought concerning political principles and policies. These disputes often center on the limits of toleration and the extent of opposition to inequalities in modern society. Despite these disagreements, liberals maintain a shared commitment to principles that distinguish their ideology from alternative political frameworks, such as libertarianism.

Liberalism and Libertarianism

Libertarians share certain liberal commitments to toleration and freedom but base these commitments on a strong belief in self-ownership and private property rights. These beliefs often lead libertarians to diverge from liberal views, particularly in socioeconomic matters. For instance, while liberals argue that employer discrimination based on race or sex is unjust, libertarians contend that private property holders have no enforceable obligation to exercise their rights in a non-discriminatory manner. Similarly, liberals support fair distribution of resources, whereas libertarians, like Robert Nozick, argue that taxation on income constitutes theft and advocate for minimal state regulation of monetary exchanges.

Liberal and libertarian views on freedom also differ fundamentally. Liberals see basic freedoms—such as freedom of conscience, expression, and democratic rights—as inalienable and non-transferable through voluntary contracts. In contrast, libertarians treat these freedoms as part of a broader set of rights tied to self-ownership and private property, allowing individuals to transfer them voluntarily. For example, Nozick’s libertarian framework permits the right to sell oneself into slavery, obliging the state to enforce such contracts.

Political Principles: Neutrality and Perfectionism

Contemporary liberalism is united by its commitment to freedom and equality but divided over the specification and defense of these principles. A key area of debate is whether the state should remain neutral on controversial questions of the good life or actively promote valuable ways of living through its powers. These powers might include criminal laws to prohibit harmful lifestyles, educational policies to encourage valuable conceptions of the good, or tax incentives to favor certain lifestyles.

The distinction between neutralists and perfectionists is central to this debate. Neutralists advocate for justificatory neutrality, arguing that political decisions should not depend on contested views of the good. For example, while individuals may disagree on whether gay relationships are sinful or valuable, neutralists insist that the state should not take a stance. Instead, political arrangements should be acceptable to people with differing views, emphasizing civil and political freedoms and socioeconomic opportunities for all.

Conversely, perfectionists assert that all ethical ideals generate political reasons. Some, like Joseph Raz, maintain liberal conclusions based on the value of personal autonomy, arguing that liberal institutions promote autonomy by exposing individuals to diverse lifestyle options and supporting self-determination. Perfectionist liberals might endorse state actions, such as promoting certain religions through education or offering tax exemptions for associated institutions, so long as these actions align with the broader aim of fostering autonomy.

Not all perfectionist liberals rely on autonomy as their central value. Scholars like William Galston emphasize value pluralism, arguing that liberal institutions accommodate multiple valuable ethical lives, not all of which prioritize autonomy. These thinkers highlight the importance of freedom of expression and association while often placing more limited emphasis on autonomy than other perfectionist liberals.

Fundamental Philosophical Ideals: Political vs. Comprehensive Liberalism

A key debate in liberal philosophy concerns whether state officials and legislators can legitimately base their actions on controversial ethical or religious ideals. This issue intersects with the broader discussion on the philosophical foundations of liberalism. John Rawls highlights a distinction between comprehensive liberalism and political liberalism.

Comprehensive liberals base their political theories on contested ethical ideals. For instance, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill derive their political proposals from specific moral philosophies: Kant emphasizes moral autonomy, while Mill focuses on human improvement through “higher pleasures” and individuality. Contemporary philosophers like Joseph Raz and Ronald Dworkin also fall into this category. Dworkin, for example, advocates for liberal institutions through his “challenge model of ethics,” which defines a good life as successfully responding to appropriate challenges. His more recent work emphasizes principles of equal intrinsic value for all lives and individual responsibility for personal success.

Some comprehensive liberals, such as Bruce Ackerman and Brian Barry, defend political neutrality by appealing to ethical skepticism—the belief that no one can determine the ultimate truth about religion or the good life. However, this approach faces criticism. Liberal principles like toleration are normative and tell lawmakers how to act. If skepticism undermines all normative views, it cannot justify liberal principles, as the truth about toleration would be as inaccessible as the truth about controversial ethical issues. Furthermore, selectively applying skepticism to specific issues, like abortion or homosexuality, while exempting liberal values, is contentious and lacks clear justification.

Political liberals, such as Rawls, reject reliance on contested ethical ideals. Instead, they defend liberal institutions based on the shared interests of free and equal citizens. These citizens are viewed as capable of reflecting on and revising their life plans. Rawls argues for protecting liberties and opportunities, such as freedom of conscience, expression, and association, alongside socioeconomic provisions like healthcare, unemployment compensation, and a basic income, to enable citizens to pursue their goals.

Rawls’s avoidance of controversial ethical claims is rooted in two motivations: an empirical observation and a normative commitment. Empirically, protecting civil freedoms inevitably produces ethical and religious diversity. This diversity may stem from differing perspectives, reasoning errors, or the complexity of weighing ethical considerations. Normatively, Rawls’s concept of political legitimacy requires principles to be justifiable to all citizens, regardless of their ethical views. Thus, his justification of liberal principles relies on widely accepted democratic values like freedom and equality, rather than contested ethical claims.

This normative ideal, however, is debated. Critics propose alternative legitimacy concepts, such as Joseph Raz’s view that does not prioritize universal acceptability. Rawls’s commitment to inclusivity reflects his belief in political autonomy, inspired by Rousseau and Hegel. They argue that individuals can remain free despite legal constraints if those constraints realize goods they personally value. This perspective allows individuals to view society as a supportive home rather than an alienating environment.

Political Principles: Justice, Legitimacy, and Equality

Contemporary liberalism distinguishes itself from libertarianism partly through its commitment to addressing economic inequalities. A central focus of liberal thought is identifying a fair conception of distributive justice. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls advocates principles like “fair equality of opportunity” and the “difference principle,” which prioritizes improving the welfare of the least advantaged.

Other liberals propose alternative approaches. For example, Dworkin’s liberal equality permits income inequalities arising from individual choices but compensates for inequalities due to bad luck, such as disadvantaged social circumstances. By contrast, Raz rejects egalitarianism, while others argue for sufficiency-based justice or varying levels of priority for disadvantaged individuals.

Critics misunderstood Rawls’s shift to political liberalism as abandoning social justice. However, his later work, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, reaffirms his commitment to these principles within political liberalism. Rawls distinguishes between justice and legitimacy: while justice concerns fair distribution, legitimacy pertains to the justification of political authority. A legitimate state need not achieve the difference principle but must protect civil liberties, ensure opportunities, and meet citizens’ basic needs.

The Reach of Liberalism: Domestic and Global Perspectives

Liberals differ on the application of justice and legitimacy principles. Domestically, debates center on the extent of neutrality. Some argue neutrality applies only to constitutional rights, allowing voters and politicians to base legislation on their ethical beliefs. Others extend neutrality to all legislation, asserting that laws should reflect values affirmable by all citizens.

Globally, Rawls and Thomas Nagel advocate modest principles of justice, such as upholding human rights and assisting impoverished nations, but reject radical redistribution from wealthy to poor countries. Critics like Thomas Pogge argue that global arrangements, which significantly impact individuals’ lives, demand scrutiny under justice principles. Cosmopolitans extend liberal commitments to address global inequalities, emphasizing the unfairness of life chances determined by birthplace.

Disagreements also arise over liberalism’s role in family and cultural life. Autonomy-based liberals prioritize children’s right to an autonomous future, even opposing restrictive cultural or religious practices. Value pluralists, who deny that autonomy is essential to a good life, support broader parental rights to shape their children’s upbringing.

Criticisms of Contemporary Liberalism

Throughout its history, liberalism has faced criticism that its commitment to freedom and equality is incomplete. Socialists and feminists, for instance, have argued that liberal principles often fail to extend these ideals to crucial domains such as the workplace, economic decision-making, and the family. Susan Moller Okin highlighted how the treatment of women within the family perpetuates gender inequality and limits women's freedom. Similarly, G.A. Cohen critiqued John Rawls’s conception of justice, focusing on the arbitrary distinction between rules governing socioeconomic institutions (e.g., tax and benefit systems) and the ethos shaping individual economic choices, such as work effort.

Cohen specifically targeted Rawls’s difference principle, which allows income inequalities if they incentivize individuals to take socially valuable jobs or work harder, ultimately benefiting the least advantaged. While this principle imposes a duty to vote for policies that maximize the welfare of the least advantaged, Cohen argued that it fails to address individuals' moral responsibility in daily economic choices. He advocated for an egalitarian ethos, where the productive work for the benefit of all without expecting unequal rewards.

Both Okin and Cohen contend that liberals wrongly distinguish between public matters, where justice applies, and nonpublic matters, which are seen as exempt. Liberals have responded to such criticisms with varying degrees of concession. Rawls, for example, acknowledged the need to protect women from involuntary disadvantages stemming from societal and familial gender roles. However, many liberals resist Cohen's call for an egalitarian ethos, arguing that regulating personal economic decisions would require intrusive surveillance and undermine transparency.

Another prominent critique of contemporary liberalism is that it is excessively individualistic. Communitarians, for example, argue that liberalism neglects the importance of cultural communities, which shape individuals’ lives and values. Communitarian critiques have taken different forms:

1. Justification Through Community Values: Some claim that principles of political morality can only be justified by referencing shared values within specific communities.

2. Cultural and Social Contexts: Others highlight the significance of cultural practices and community relationships in providing meaning and purpose to individuals’ lives.

3. Common Goods: Certain communitarians argue that individual well-being is best achieved through shared pursuit of common goods, which liberalism allegedly overlooks.

Liberals counter these critiques through two primary strategies:

1. Incorporating Communitarian Insights: Liberals often agree on the importance of community and claim that liberal frameworks can accommodate or integrate communitarian concerns. For instance, Rawls viewed his theory of justice as supporting the collective good of a well-ordered society. Will Kymlicka’s concept of multicultural citizenship incorporates communitarian values into liberal thought.

2. Rejecting Communitarian Assumptions: Liberals challenge the feasibility of defining communities by shared values and reject the idea that political principles should merely reflect such values. This approach emphasizes that liberalism offers a basis for critiquing existing social and political structures rather than uncritically supporting them.

In essence, while liberalism has sought to adapt to criticisms, it remains fundamentally committed to providing a framework for justice and equality that transcends specific cultural or community values, offering a critical lens for societal improvement.

In summary,  contemporary liberalism encompasses diverse interpretations of freedom and equality, leading to debates over state neutrality, the role of ethical ideals in politics, and the scope of liberal principles. Despite these variations, liberals remain united in their commitment to a framework that champions toleration, civil liberties, and efforts to reduce inequality.

 © Ransford Global Institute