“[T]he human mind must be autonomous, subject only to its own law... its own supreme authority, its own criterion of truth and right.
… [W]hat makes our experience intelligible is largely, perhaps entirely, the work of our own minds. We do not know what the world is really like, we know only how it appears to us, and how it appears to us is largely what we make it to be. Thus the mind of man not only is its own ultimate authority, but also replaces God as the intelligent planner and creator of the experienced universe. And, to Kant, the human mind is also the author of its own moral standards.” John Frame on Immanuel Kant in Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of his Thought (1995)
Liberal Principles I
Liberal Principles II
Liberal Principles III
Liberal Principles IV
Liberal Principles V
1. A god has no control nor exerts any influence in the world today, whether he created the world or not
2. War is never the answer
3. Don’t trust your government
4. Government should play a major role in the enforcement of the equality of all ideas, sociological and economic
5. Morality is relative to the personal choice of the individual and there should always be a safety net against the consequences of those personal choices
In the last conversation I acquiesced to making an edit to my fourth liberal principle. I’m not certain it was one that would ultimately be agreeable to those that prompted the edit, but it was an edit just the same. Ultimately, I was convinced that the enforcement of morality was just as absolute for liberals as anyone else, but the absolute adhered to was that of equality which allows for the relativity of ideas to the personal freedom of expression. This brings us to my final liberal principle; the desire to focus on the self-sufficiency of our own minds, while creating an environment of “social insurance” when that sufficiency is found to be wanting.
Liberal Principle #5 Morality is relative to the personal choice of the individual and there should always be a safety net against the consequences of those personal choices
About six years ago, I would have been found in a bar, at a party, at my parent’s house, wherever; making very similar claims as Kant on the autonomy and ultimate authority being found in my empirical universe. Being an atheist and seeing myself as the ultimate ruler and authority over all things in my life gave me the sense that there was nothing that I couldn’t handle. It showed me that I didn’t really need other people in my life to be happy and no matter how I acted; if I was being true to myself there was nothing wrong with that. My choices only truly affected me and if they somehow affected anyone else, then it was their fault for allowing my choices to impact their lives. Friends of mine that knew me well six years ago and barely know me now have said, “I don’t see a real difference in your life. You used to say you knew everything before because it was in your head, now you say it’s because it’s in the Bible.”
What an unfortunate picture of pride in my life, and what a disappointing reaction to the Gospel. It does however highlight the very basic problems with the power of the individual and the constant desire for so many to assert their personal choices as having no affect on others. These choices having any number of primary and secondary causes will have an effect on society no matter how personal the choice. Simply isolating the individual, giving them the basic right of autonomy, and allowing free reign over the expression of their ideas leads us down a path of egalitarianism. Consequently, this shows that each individual’s personal choice is relative to their view of morality as it exists in their sovereign life.
The absolute belief in equality puts all ideas on a level playing field and thus makes it difficult to assert one over another. Therefore we end up with a relativistic view. Once we have arrived here by the power of our personal choices and freedoms we will find that we are in fact, not perfect. We make mistakes and those mistakes having primary and secondary causes will bring about consequences either in our life, in the lives other or in both.
Being that these consequences are quite often not pleasant ones and already being predisposed to the freedom found in our personal choices, many will simply make the personal choice not to endure the residual affects of their actions. Society can compound that problem by absolving, creating a safety net or in other words, implementing “social insurance” against the perceived inequitable cost.
Liberals want the relative personal freedom of expression of our individual morality, while at the same time championing calls for the absolution of personal responsibility when that free expression brings about consequences.
I am not purporting that we should all be forced to endure the consequences of each and every decision we make. If that were the case, as the Apostle Paul summarizes in Romans 3, “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.” If that were the only truth in this world, we would live lives with no hope at all. But this is not the case. Ken Sande writes in Peacefakers, Peacebreakers, & Peacemakers, “Christians being the most forgiven people should also be the most forgiving.” This gives us a sense for what we need, and what we need is balance.
Balance between consequence and grace. Balance between forgiveness and responsibility. The current liberal climate is lacking that balance and even if the intentions are good to bring about a softening of the consequences it teaches little about personal responsibility and too much about personal autonomy. Like Immanuel Kant, the lesson of the day is ultimate authority found in the authorship of our own moral standards; when it should be the submission to an ultimate authority outside of us and adherence to the authorship of His moral standard.
I do not expect that this will be met with anything different than the precursory principles I have put forth. In the end it is my desire to share my observation of what these principles ultimately are and not what one would necessarily admit to adhering to, if one were to find themselves identified as liberal. I do hope to learn from reactions to this post and continue the interaction that may lead to a better understanding that is found in the reconciliation of one person to another.
Posted by price at June 30, 2005 05:13 PM | TrackBackBefore I comment directly, I wanted to ask about this:
"In the end it is my desire to share my observation of what these principles ultimately are and not what one would necessarily admit to adhering to, if one were to find themselves identified as liberal."
I know questioning the "method of argument" is often a way to skirt the issue, but I really think it's warranted here, especially since you're at the conclusion of your series. Are you saying that your conclusions are correct despite what adherents to (or other observers of) liberal philosophy might understand the principles as being? I find that a little strange, and here's why. Although I disagree with a lot of what you say when it comes to the appropriate uses of religion, I would never question your religious expertise - you're a practicing Christian and I'm not. Nor would I suggest that you should "admit" that your principles are anything other than what you say they are. I would expect that you'd argue in good faith, and I would think that you'd expect the same out of "liberals". By saying what you've said, you demonstrate that you're operating under the assumption that "liberals" either don't know what they stand for or deliberately lie about it. That is serious bad faith, and it cannot lead to an honest debate.
If what you're interested in is a refutation of liberalism, you might, instead of inventing the principles out of whole cloth, go and ask some liberals what they think those principles are. Then if you disagree with the principles you'd at least have an honest disagreement. Or if you thought that the liberal program was failing to live up to those principles that would be totally legitimate. Even if you wanted to show implicit contradictions in various liberal principles as enunciated by the practitioners that would be totally reasonable. I don't think you're interested in any of that, though. You're interested in showing how a set of principles directly contradicts your worldview as seen through scripture. There's nothing wrong with that either (aside from that fact that it's not a debate that can take place within the framework of rational discourse) but I think if you'd actually asked about what the principles were you'd still find plenty with which to disagree.
Now, on to the direct comment. In your formulation of the principle you've managed to conflate two totally different principles, one liberal, the other libertarian. The safety net has no relation to moral or immoral behaviour. It exists to protect everyone, regardless of past behaviour, against the potential harshness of the market. If there's a moral case here it's simply that a "moral society" doesn't allow people to suffer needlessly when it's no fault of their own. Of course, you may think it's immoral to be born poor, or lose your job because the CEO of your company drove it out of business through embezzling, or lose the sole breadwinner in your family through catastrophic(though treatable) illness, or lose your earning power because your legs got blown off in a war because you joined the army because you were born poor. If that's the case then the gulf between "conservative" and "liberal" is wider than I thought. I think, though, that you actually think the safety net exists to protect people from the consequences of their bad choices(and here we might see an actual contradiction with the second part of the made up principle). Though this may be a side effect of the social safety net, it is not the purpose. Liberals realize that though one is free to choose one's behaviour(within the bounds of the law), one is also at the mercy of some things beyond their direct control (the market, specifically). The safety net is there to help reduce the brutality of the market, not remove it.
The autonomy question isn't really anything much to do with being a liberal. That's pure libertarianism which is a form on anarchy reliant on force to ensure property rights. By contrast, though liberals believe in freedom etc, they also believe in equality before the law. So although one should be free to think and speak as they please, how they act is necessarily going to be limited by the law, and liberals, generally, understand that. If there's any sort of true philosophical debate here, it's a question of the source of the laws - reason or revelation. And here is where we could actually start a real debate about liberal principles. But the series is over, which is too bad.
Posted by: jayinbmore at July 6, 2005 11:16 AMI have held off on a response to this post because of the London bombings and it is was probably poor timing on my part to post this so close to the 4th of July in the first place.
As to my method of argument here and to address your questions regarding my conclusions and the concern for honest debate I will offer a brief explanation. I set out to engage anyone that chose to engage me back with a set of principles that I had already observed as a basis for liberal thought. It was my hope that this dialog would help me to adjust any of my conclusions and would allow me the opportunity to refute liberalism as it contradicts a Christian worldview. It is not that a disagreement with these principles would mean that liberals don’t know what they stand for or are lying about it, but that they do not view their adherence to these principles in the light in which I present them.
In my original post on this subject, I stated that I understood there will be variations to these principles but that I had observed them to be “over-arching”. This is the spirit of the argument as I have presented in these posts, an over-arching framework from which to build. You had this to say in response, “Part of the problem with finding underlying principles on the left generally and liberals in particular is it's unlikely you'll find much agreement. Lefties in general are disagreeable people.” Along with yourself and some others that have been willing to engage me, you have shown that you are disagreeable people and have aided me in fine tuning these principles as evidenced with an adjustment to principle 4.
So moving forward to your interaction with this principle, I see some agreeance between us. You admit that the social safety net can and will absolve people of some personal responsibility of their poor decisions. Further we agree that as a society, we should show mercy, provide aide and comfort to those who have been harmed by things beyond their control.
Where we diverge on these issues is your belief that the market, and I assume this is another term for capitalism or an end result of it, is inherently harsh and brutal. The market is what allows our country and our citizens to afford the opportunity to show genuine compassion to the rest of the world by providing mercy, aide and comfort. The safety net to ease the suffering in the world is the outpouring of generosity in people’s hearts. As we promote personal responsibility, we promote compassion. When we promote the absolution of personal responsibility, we promote indifference to the world around us.
As I see it, the issue surrounding human autonomy is exactly what the liberal belief of equality is built from, and as such has everything to do with being a liberal. This is as it seems the pervasive worldview as liberals seek to shape the law that limits them, so that it no longer points them in a single moral direction. Instead, they are free to adhere to any number of moral equivalencies. I would agree that a related issue here is the source of law, source of morality, and you do bring up an interesting correlation between reason and revelation. Unfortunately, they are not pitted against one another, but work hand in hand. Now the source of law being man or something outside of man, is a very poignant philosophical question; especially in the light of these principles.
This series will never truly be over. At the very least I hope to write a final summary post tying them altogether again, just as I wrote an introductory one. Although I doubt this discussion and debate will end there either, and I hope it doesn’t. On going learning, understanding and reconciliation will hopefully lead to growth, strength and compromise for anyone willing to engage these ideas and not just be disagreeable.
Posted by: Jeff Price at July 12, 2005 03:15 PM