The Moral Emptiness of Liberalism?

(That is its strength)

Photo by Duangphorn Wiriya on Unsplash

It is common for critics of liberalism to express dissatisfaction with it on the grounds that it does not provide a positive moral framework. They point out that “Believe, speak, live as you see fit provided that you do not harm anyone else or prevent them from doing the same” is not a particularly unifying principle. These critics feel a need for a shared belief system with common values to make culture cohesive.

This observation about liberalism is straightforwardly true and was best set out by John Stuart Mill’s “one very simple principle” in 1859:

[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Liberalism, in this philosophical sense, really does, at root, have only one “You must not” (impose your stuff on other people) while positive belief systems have a collection of “You musts” (believe in this god/support this kind of government/have this kind of family structure/uphold these moral values) and “You must nots” (believe in other gods/governments/family structures/moral values).

I think an error arises when people seem to think that they have to choose between having a positive belief system and upholding the simple negative liberal principle. This is the opposite of the expectation. The reason that liberalism exists in the first place is so that people can have both with minimal bloodshed.

If humans had ever achieved a culture in which everybody shared a belief system with common values, we would not need liberalism because nobody would be trying to coerce anyone else into having or pretending to have different beliefs and values to the ones they really do have. We have never achieved this cultural cohesion. It didn’t exist even in times when everybody was the same religion, had the same nationality, came from the same cultural/racial/ethnic background and lived under the same, sole government. Never. Humans don’t do this. As E.O. Wilson said of Marxism, “Good ideology. Wrong species.” There are 45,000 denominations of Christianity for a reason. The reason is that humans are big-brained groupish apes who nevertheless think independently of each other, disagree with each other, become impassioned about the disagreements and factionalise over them and enter into conflict about them. Sometimes these conflicts go on for centuries.

Liberalism, then, as a simple ethical principle, is a system of conflict resolution. It does not replace positive ethical frameworks. It both protects them and prevents believers in them from imposing themselves upon people with different ones. Liberalism, in this sense, can perhaps be best understood via this simple sentence structure.

I am/believe in <belief system> but I defend your right not to.

This could look like:

I am a Christian but I defend others’ right to be Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, atheist etc.

I advocate for left-wing economic policies, but I defend a democratic system in which others can argue for different economic policies which can then be voted on by all adults.

I believe gender roles are both natural and good, but defend others’ right to believe, speak and live differently.

I believe it is simply polite and kind to use a trans person’s chosen pronouns, but defend the rights of those who believe differently to decline to do so.

This is not moral relativism. People who commit to this liberal principle do not have to think the beliefs of others to be either factually true or morally good to defend their right to them. They simply have to believe that other people have the right to be wrong as long as they are not causing any material harm to others and (ideally) appreciate those who believe that they themselves are wrong and defend their right to be. They can then continue to argue as strongly as they wish for why those beliefs are factually wrong and/or unethical and I am very much in favour of them doing so.

Because Mills’ ‘very simple principle’ is so very simple, I am often baffled by people on social media who seem not to find it so. I frequently have conversations with someone who is advocating banning something that does not do material harm to anyone - men wearing dresses, Baphomet statues in public spaces etc - only for them to fall back on the right to criticise. It is as almost as though banning or punishing people for expression of their views is on a continuum with criticism rather than that the line which maintains a liberal society falls squarely between the two. It is, perhaps, this part of Mills’ passage that needs stressing most.

These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.

Perhaps an allegory of different forms of conflict resolution could help more people to internalise the simple core principle of liberalism?

Imagine a large playground attached to a primary school with hundreds of children in it and the different modes of peacekeeping and conflict resolution that could be exercised?

Firstly, there could be no model at all. No supervision. No system of governance. The children could be allowed to sort out sharing the space themselves. How soon would this devolve into a Lord of the Flies scenario? How long would it take for one group to take over the space and determine who could access it and what games they must play and in which role? Possibly there would be a small number of ‘warlords’ each with their own patch with its own rules and an ongoing warfare, invasions and coups. This ‘might makes right’ model of forceful dominance and overthrow has been the predominant one thoughout human history. I would rather not go back there.

Secondly, there could be a strong, regulating force which attempted to keep peace and maintain fairness by scheduling games and compelling full participation with constant, strict supervision to ensure that nobody was getting left out (even if they wanted to be) or creating their own games or roles? How quickly would this become a space that inspired nobody and where nobody wanted to be? How soon would creativity and organic, naturally occurring relationships, strengths and talents simply fade away? How would participation be compelled when this happened. This model of militant organisation and forced participation in controlled roles most closely resembles that of communist regimes. I think we should avoid systems that lead to these kinds of regimes.

Thirdly, there could be a hands-off mode of minimal governance where children were able to form their own groups and decide their own games and, for the most part, settle their own battles. Only on the occasions where one group began to dominate another causing harm or restricting its freedom would authorities respond with an uncompromising “No” and then remove itself as soon as the authoritarian threat had ceased. If Conservative Christianity starts trying to throw Judaism out of parts of the playground or Critical Social Justice (wokeness) starts pulling conservatism’s hair and telling it what game it must play or Marxism takes Libertarianism’s ball and runs away, authorities are authorised to intervene & disallow this. It must never overstep this limited responsibility or it is immediately dismantled and replaced. This is the manifestation of the goal of liberal democracies operating on Mill’s simple, negative rule. I would like to live in a society that gets as close to that as possible, please.

Society is not a playground and no ideal is ever fully realised. Nor will leaving people alone to live according to their own beliefs and values ensure that good beliefs and values are the ones that emerge and become popular. It simply limits the power of bad ones to harm others if they do become popular as long as we hold that liberal line. This liberal principle provides, I would argue, the basic conditions needed to produce a culture that has the security and space to weed out its bad ideas and reform itself without succumbing to the reactionaries or revolutionaries, giving too much power to the mob or the state. We’ll never have a society which has a single shared belief system with common values, but we can all commit to producing one that protects our own belief system and values by agreeing that it can protect other people’s too. It may well be the worst form of government except for all the others. If it is not the best system we can devise, it will enable finding out what is.