Philosophy Now Forum

Liberalism
Liberalism is a simple value that can easily be corrupted. It is seen as a democratic value opposed to tyranny and bigotry. But in use it is and must be related to other values that define it positively. Self-interested egoism is a simple value in opposition to altruism. Responsibility and duty stand opposed to anarchism. Whether liberalism and tolerance are altruistic or anarchistic depends on which of those simple general values it allies with. At the altruist wing it is tolerant of cultural differences at a global scale, but it is socially and pragmatically positive. At the other liberal wing it is fragmented and individualistic to an extreme. At this latter point there arises a peculiarity that is evident in present day democracy; in its passion for personal autonomy it supresses debate that is not about liberalism. Altruist debate allows what may be absurd beliefs, such as in hell and damnation, to be aired. Naturally, if such wide debate causes society to fracture, then there will be limitations on that range of debate. But in that eventuality society will be so much less democratic and altruistic – and that has limits.

I tried to imagine an ideal world where we had the capacity to have absolute freedom. In such an ideal world for myself alone, it might mean something like some super-futuristic device or set of devices that could enable me to act out some fantasy no matter how relatively vile it might be that I can 'undo' once I've exhausted the experience.

I might try stabbing myself, for instance. This experience would make me feel the suffering and pain I imposed upon myself as I die. To 'undo' this experience, I'd need some mechanism that 'saved' me, like a computer game, so that if I die, I could be reinvigorated with life again to 'play' as many lives and more experiences over and over, including potentially others I might imagine experiment with.

But I'd require a memory of the experience or I'd have to trust the tally of some data of this magical device that says I've tried the experience already. But the idea of having such freedom should mean holding onto the memory of the fantasy or I'd require repeating it at some point to reassure that I was satisfied with trying out that option already.

But if I have to hold onto the memory, the memory might traumatize me which then imposes its own 'limitations' of how I'd opt to choose that option or similar 'free' options. This limits my freedom and so I'd be unable to prove I had the absolute 'freedom' I intended to have.

Okay, so my freedom is limited perhaps to only those things I choose that don't affect me personally. So I might try those fantasies that harm others. Knowing that I could undo them, means that I can personally have the experience but not harm others in the process, right?

Well, imagine that I had the fantasy of torturing someone. Given that I could undo this to those I have tortured after exhausting the experience seems fair, right? When people play video games that involve killing, is the experience sufficient to exhaust one's freedom to experience what they want?

If I lived infinitely this way, I'd be have to continue to exhaust all possibilities including having these virtual reality type experiences be more and more complete. This should include some experience like torturing someone for a whole life. Of course I could later erase it for myself. But is the virtual being that I'm torturing not some essence in itself that at some point is indifferent to our real lives now? I mean, we all actually die anyways. So in that sense, our 'memories' are erased such that even if we are the object being tortured for some other person's 'free' experience here and now, there is no logical distinction.

So, for my own 'freedom' to be absolute, I'd still have to also accept that in my ideal world that I too could be in some illusive game of one being tortured at some point by someone else. Thus, my freedom is only as 'free' as the capacity for all others to experience the same freedom.

Not knowing that we can live beyond our own life, even if potentially infinite, means that I'd prefer a world that doesn't use me as some avatar even for the sake of torture for the sake of someone else's freedom. Thus, I would have to hope for a meaning of being 'liberal' as the classical definition of "having as much freedom as possible without imposing the limit of another's freedom to do the same."

But....

....

Reality seems to present us with dilemmas that cannot be overcome. If reality placed me tied down to some track along a parallel one with a billion people ties to that one, AND a train was coming towards me on my track but I had a switch that I can redirect the train to run over that billion on the parallel one instead, what should I choose?

Why would or should I 'sacrifice' myself for the sake of the billion? Does any two other lives make me less significant just because I am only one? If I counted on that billion to exist for my own happiness, this might be my option. Maybe if I even valued one among that billion more than myself, it might be worth it.

Nature is like this kind of dilemma though. Our own consciousness would not need to exist if nature could resolve 'freedom' for each of us. So, in this world, even the "utilitarian' idea of appealing to the greater happiness doesn't mean much if you are one of those minorities that must be sacrificed for the sake of the numbers.

I still prefer liberalism and would have to agree in principle to the utilitarian concept. But if the freedom of my own is required to be limited for the sake of some majority, I am also 'free' to disagree and do whatever it takes to reverse this misfortune. As such, humans, as well as all life forms, cannot have a universal appeal of moral agreement about freedom without accepting some form of universal suffering or self-sacrifice of our own freedoms. If we are at present on an island to which there is not enough food to feed us all, we'd all need to agree to all die to respect equal 'free' choices among us or require at least taking it away from some without their will.

I don't think politics is resolvable in any ideal. The greater chance for me going into some agreement would require beginning on equal grounds of the risks involved. I didn't recall choosing to be born though. So this too will be limited of those born after such ideal agreement at some point. But what is the alternative to these ideals of 'freedom'? The only thing I can think of is to prevent others from noticing this truth but faking that it CAN be true of them too but keep them dumb enough not to logically determine the truth until it is too late.

This is why I hate politics. There is a flicker of hope though: ....if absolutely everything were true in totality. This way we'd at least have an equal share of the infinite experiences of suffering as we do experiencing prosperity. I think this is the likely truth. If not, then at least death can hopefully provide sufficient relief.

I wonder, where do you draw the line between leftist extremism and moderate liberalism?

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:51 pm I wonder, where do you draw the line between leftist extremism and moderate liberalism?

I think the moderate is centrist and mixed of a type of 'libertarian' form. [Thing Bill Maher]

The stricter 'leftist extremist' is more of a collective conservatism of a progressive or contemporary set of conditions that believes in imposing laws that treat FORCE balance of people's capacity to BE liberal. Because groups tend to dominate any political view, it is hard to not see the conservative or pre-conservative views of an extreme nature even of those arguing for more liberalism. What the extreme of the Marxist concept of revolution involves on the left is to ADVOCATE as though a lawyer defending or prosecuting some case. As such, it is hard to tell if the extremist on the left intend to literally hold to specific strict advocacy of protection to unique subgroups or for a mere temporary basis. They are utilizing tactics similar to the traditional right nowadays and why the choice to strictly side for some defined subgroup ideologies favoring affirmative action with a counter negation of the majority conservative groups in power.

Moderation is my preference. I can't stand the belief that it is okay to sacrifice minorities of the dominating class or to non-affiliated peoples. They treat society as though numbers are more valid than the particular people. That's why the backlash of the counter-counter rise in nationalism exists. People of one preferential view are being forced to side with the parties that LEAST harm them for their extreme views. We are in a stage similar to the flipping of the magnetic poles. We are getting burned by the sun's harmful radiation as no poles are clearly defined anymore. (It might be a good thing if this is just a phase, though)

All true. I guess I was really asking where’s the borderline between moderate and extremist. I don’t know that I could answer that, but I was hoping you would tackle it and maybe even come up with illustrative examples.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:24 pm All true. I guess I was really asking where’s the borderline between moderate and extremist. I don’t know that I could answer that, but I was hoping you would tackle it and maybe even come up with illustrative examples.

Take one particular subset of a present-day liberal party that favors Feminism. The average liberal would moderately agree to fairness to and for women. But the 'extreme' of the left would take the Marxist interpretation of history that the ONLY way to make SOME changes when a systemic constitution of the way society has evolved the laws of a country are unable to overthrow or assure change (progress) without revolution. To this line of thinking, the idea is that you must ADVOCATE STRICTLY for one side regardless of the reality because anything less either excessively delays change or it locks it out permanently.

That example, one that I loathe of the left, is taken on by a type of 'conservative' thinking: that you have to impose top-down, beliefs upon those beneath you on the belief that the average person is too barbaric or demanding of CLEAR boundaries of thought to accept with clarity. Thus, the attraction of those wanting to change the system drastically in their presumption of being disempowered, would favor the 'liberal' side only by coincidence of its favor for MORE THAN ONE view in contrast to the present powers that maintain the conservation of the system as it is perceived to be unchangeable.

Then you have the separate different religions that are not presently dominant. Of them, you will have more extreme groups that prefer a voice of their GROUP as a whole. The idea of trying to change others views by supporting the concept of 'liberalism' is indifferent to defining them wanting 'freedom' (as "liberal" is derived) to BE INTOLERANT or segregated. Just as some want 'freedom' out of their chains, some want the 'freedom TO chain' that they presently lack. As such, the 'liberal' side will have those relative right-wing-type thinkers who would embrace strict conservative values IF they had the power. The fact that any group has more force than individuals means that for politics, all 'sides' are dominated not by individuals who hold virtue to the particular views being sold but to the means of those devoted segregated groups. So you get the Ku Klux Klan favoring the conservatives because they are made up of those who hold relative present power AND are seclusive. The left will have more diversity and thus have to hold back any factor that doesn't respect the lowest common denominator of the groups more prominent there. Thus, the extreme factor of particular cultures there will be 'moderated' to appear non-threatening to the masses.

sometimes i wonder how much human behaviour can be understood under the hub of 'social relevance' and that most other values which seem to be pursued as ends in themselves are actually toward this end

humans are the most social species on earth, unless one is of a mental disposition of being outside of social reality (psychosis and the like) then are they not constantly concerned with their social relevance?

are they not constantly being affected by their connection to social reality: their self-esteem, their sense of belonging, respect, standing - any socio-emotional byproduct of being connected to social reality, regardless of where one is located in it.

to the extent that this is the moment to moment subjective experience of most people, in what manner do people pursue freedom?

merely to enhance their social relevance?

perhaps it is relative to one's circumstance. those in jail seek to get out, those in a dangerous situation seek to escape. what freedom means to relative to circumstance.

in the context of liberalism, freedom probably relates to social relevance. people want access to the options that will maximize their social relevance. yes, anyone, in any situation, can call themselves a liberal based on superficial identification with the values - freedom is freedom, right?

but maybe what separates liberal freedom from other kinds of freedom is, as suggested above, motivation: social relevance. so it is more of an ideology than a value. calling it a 'simple value' takes too much for granted, and incidentally reveals your bias op