Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
Okay but don't you then basically run into the problem of essentialism?
|
I'm not convinced it's a problem, philosophically, but am prepared to be convinced. A rectangle, essentially, has four sides. A liberal, essentially, follows liberal principles. There probably is no essential liberal person in the real world, much as you can't actually show me a real life two-dimensional object. That doesn't mean the concept can't be understood, approximated and adhered to to varying degrees.
For example, there are inevitably going to be instances where liberalism conflicts with some generalized moral theory - a person who in general follows liberal principles might want to diverge from them in the instance where they might conflict with some other value the person holds (say, hedonistic utilitarianism).
For example, let's alter the statement I just used earlier. Suppose someone said, "I'm a liberal, but I'm also a hedonistic utilitarian. Generally I think liberal principles lead to the greatest possible happiness for everyone. However, in the specific case of X, I think that speech should be restricted, because that particular restriction will produce greater happiness". That would just be an instance of a person who is usually a liberal acting in a non-liberal manner in a particular case (possibly for defensible reasons), which is one of the examples I used in the post you quoted. That doesn't change the fact that liberalism demands we place no restrictions on peoples' voicing of their views - the essential philosophy remains unaffected. What am I missing?