The contradictions of liberalism

[Alexiev]

"Liberal" has become a dirty word in the U.S. In Canada and the U.K, it has become associated with a political party (often an unsuccessful one). But in the U.S, the right wingers castigate "libtards" and the progressives think liberals are weak, mamby pambies with no convictions.

I disagree. "Progressive" has always smacked of a doctrinaire, authoritative view of "progress". We must all see "progress" in the same way, and toe the line when it comes to the methods of achieving it. The word (if not the movement) makes me envision jack boots, progressing in unison toward the glowing goal.

"Liberal", on the other hand, implies an open-minded generosity (based on the meaning of the word). Why liberals have been bullied into avoiding the term escapes me.

The problem with liberalism is that its basic philosophy suggests, nay requires, certain contradictions. The key values of political liberalism are

1) Freedom
2) Individual rights
3) Justice
4) Fairness

Some of the many contradictions in include:

1) Many "rights' limit freedom. Property rights, for example, do nothing but limit the freedom of non-owners vis a vis the property.
2) Justice is often unfair. Justice suggests each person be given his deserts. Fairness on the other hand suggests each person be given a fair (or at least adequate) share.

What can be done? Obviously, compromise, which is anathema to the far left and far right.

The philosopher John Rawl devised a thought experiment. He suggested we imagine the society we would want to be plopped into if we did not know which role in the social structure we would be plopped into. It's simple, but powerful.

I posted this after reading the following New Yorker article, by Adam Gopnik, who is an art critic, not a philosopher, but who poses interesting questions. Here's a link:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024 ... liberalism

[LuckyR]

The philosopher John Rawl devised a thought experiment. He suggested we imagine the society we would want to be plopped into if we did not know which role in the social structure we would be plopped into. It's simple, but powerful.

A meritocracy. I'll put my skillset against the crowd any day of the week.

[Immanuel Can]

output-onlinepngtools.png

[Harbal]

The philosopher John Rawl devised a thought experiment. He suggested we imagine the society we would want to be plopped into if we did not know which role in the social structure we would be plopped into. It's simple, but powerful.

A meritocracy. I'll put my skillset against the crowd any day of the week.

Okay, I challenge you to do it on a Tuesday.

[LuckyR]

The philosopher John Rawl devised a thought experiment. He suggested we imagine the society we would want to be plopped into if we did not know which role in the social structure we would be plopped into. It's simple, but powerful.

A meritocracy. I'll put my skillset against the crowd any day of the week.

Okay, I challenge you to do it on a Tuesday.

I play tennis on Tuesdays...

[Harbal]

A meritocracy. I'll put my skillset against the crowd any day of the week.

Okay, I challenge you to do it on a Tuesday.

I play tennis on Tuesdays...

Well you had better make make sure you play skilfully, then.

[Alexiev]

The philosopher John Rawl devised a thought experiment. He suggested we imagine the society we would want to be plopped into if we did not know which role in the social structure we would be plopped into. It's simple, but powerful.

A meritocracy. I'll put my skillset against the crowd any day of the week.

Do you really want handicapped people to suffer and starve?

[Age]

"Liberal" has become a dirty word in the U.S. In Canada and the U.K, it has become associated with a political party (often an unsuccessful one). But in the U.S, the right wingers castigate "libtards" and the progressives think liberals are weak, mamby pambies with no convictions.

Just out of curiosity, did some of you posters here realize that what are named and called "liberals" in some countries are "the side", or 'on the side' of, what is generally referred to the "right wingers".

I disagree. "Progressive" has always smacked of a doctrinaire, authoritative view of "progress". We must all see "progress" in the same way, and toe the line when it comes to the methods of achieving it. The word (if not the movement) makes me envision jack boots, progressing in unison toward the glowing goal.

"Liberal", on the other hand, implies an open-minded generosity (based on the meaning of the word). Why liberals have been bullied into avoiding the term escapes me.

The problem with liberalism is that its basic philosophy suggests, nay requires, certain contradictions. The key values of political liberalism are

1) Freedom
2) Individual rights
3) Justice
4) Fairness

Some of the many contradictions in include:

1) Many "rights' limit freedom. Property rights, for example, do nothing but limit the freedom of non-owners vis a vis the property.
2) Justice is often unfair. Justice suggests each person be given his deserts. Fairness on the other hand suggests each person be given a fair (or at least adequate) share.

What can be done? Obviously, compromise, which is anathema to the far left and far right.

Take out the 'greed and selfishness', which has been leaned and instilled into your adult human being psyche, via abusive childhoods, then you adult human beings will stop doing 'selfish and greedy' misbehavior, which in turn will not teach and instill in children these obviously Wrong attributes.

Which, by the way, are not 'natural attributes' of being a human being. And, the 'belief' that being 'greedy and selfish' is a 'natural attribute' of 'being human', then, and only then, can real 'progress' begin of removing this Truly Wrong, and bad, thinking and behaving.

Once this is achieved, then what is Wrongly called 'right' and 'left' thinking will also diminish from adult human being thinking, and thus their Wrong behaviors as well.

The philosopher John Rawl devised a thought experiment. He suggested we imagine the society we would want to be plopped into if we did not know which role in the social structure we would be plopped into. It's simple, but powerful.

This is not just a 'thought experiment' only. This is what actually happens and occurs within all new born, and younger, human beings.

In 'what world' does absolutely every younger human being want to live in?

And, this is an extremely simple and easy clarifying question to answer, agree upon, and accept. As, literally, every one of you older human beings here have, once, been a 'younger human being'.

I posted this after reading the following New Yorker article, by Adam Gopnik, who is an art critic, not a philosopher, but who poses interesting questions. Here's a link:https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024 ... liberalism

Did 'you' also answer the thought experiment question here "alexiev"?

If yes, then what 'kind of society' did you imagine, which you would want to be plopped into if you did not know which role in the social structure you would be plopped into?

[Age]

output-onlinepngtools.png

For one who professes and claims to be a so-called "christian" "Immanuel can" you really do come out with some of the most negative, judgmental, separatist, un-Godly, and un-"christian" views and beliefs.

In fact you come across as one who has been far more tricked, fooled, and deceived by the 'devil', itself, and in turn have turned out to 'now' be misbehaving in many of the very way that not just your own God, but even God, Itself, would be and certainly is instructing and guiding you to 'not do'.

But, you have been too far deceived and fooled to recognize and see that this has occurred, and to notice just how Wrong 'your thoughts and beliefs' here, really are.

[Flannel Jesus]

output-onlinepngtools.png

For one who professes and claims to be a so-called "christian" "Immanuel can" you really do come out with some of the most negative, judgmental, separatist, un-Godly, and un-"christian" views and beliefs.

In fact you come across as one who has been far more tricked, fooled, and deceived by the 'devil', itself, and in turn have turned out to 'now' be misbehaving in many of the very way that not just your own God, but even God, Itself, would be and certainly is instructing and guiding you to 'not do'.

But, you have been too far deceived and fooled to recognize and see that this has occurred, and to notice just how Wrong 'your thoughts and beliefs' here, really are.

Hilarious that people should say that others are too deceived and fooled, in the days that this was written.

[Gary Childress]

I suppose just about all ideals can lead to contradictions or negative results when taken to an extreme. Maybe it's best to approach ideals from an Aristotelian perspective of a "golden mean"?

Thoughts?

[LuckyR]

The philosopher John Rawl devised a thought experiment. He suggested we imagine the society we would want to be plopped into if we did not know which role in the social structure we would be plopped into. It's simple, but powerful.

A meritocracy. I'll put my skillset against the crowd any day of the week.

Do you really want handicapped people to suffer and starve?

Uummm... that's a different question. The actual question invokved what system you wouldn't mind being "plopped into".

[Gary Childress]

A meritocracy. I'll put my skillset against the crowd any day of the week.

Do you really want handicapped people to suffer and starve?

Uummm... that's a different question. The actual question invokved what system you wouldn't mind being "plopped into".

Is he referring to Rawls' original position of ignorance or whatever (to paraphrase)? If that is the case, then it's not a question of what system one wants to be plopped into but rather how one would vote given the possibility that the one voting could conceivably equally end up on the short end of matters. If I recall, the idea is to come up with a system that all can reasonably agree to if there are no guarantees that a person (all other things equal) will be among the most benefitted. So, if you ended up handicapped or injured, would you want a society that didn't at least treat the handicapped or injured fairly so long as they generally abide by the rules.

[Age]

I suppose just about all ideals can lead to contradictions or negative results when taken to an extreme.


Maybe it's best to approach ideals from an Aristotelian perspective of a "golden mean"?

Thoughts?

The ideal that is for the good of all and every one could not and would not lead to contradictions nor to negative results?

Unless, of course, someone can show otherwise.

[Age]

Do you really want handicapped people to suffer and starve?

Uummm... that's a different question. The actual question invokved what system you wouldn't mind being "plopped into".

Is he referring to Rawls' original position of ignorance or whatever (to paraphrase)? If that is the case, then it's not a question of what system one wants to be plopped into but rather how one would vote given the possibility that the one voting could conceivably equally end up on the short end of matters. If I recall, the idea is to come up with a system that all can reasonably agree to if there are no guarantees that a person (all other things equal) will be among the most benefitted.

But, there is absolutely no system that all could, nor even would, reasonably agree with, if anyone benefits more than another.

Also, and conversely, it is the system/society that could, reasonably, agree with, and accepted, by absolutely every one, which is the One and only system/society where absolutely every one benefits equally anyway. And, it is the system/society that 'we' are progressing to, as well. That is; as long as 'you' human beings do not wipe "yourselves", prior.

So, if you ended up handicapped or injured, would you want a society that didn't at least treat the handicapped or injured fairly so long as they generally abide by the rules.