With some updating
There is a need, more than ever before, for a reiteration of the case for liberalism, now, in the aftermath of an anti-intellectual era, intrusion upon our constitutional protections, a resurgence of faith in the teachings of theistic authorities, with education floundering 1) for lack of real education in examining unfalsifiable and unverifiable language, and 2) the contortions of truth and knowledge that lie between the people and the world of politics.
The basic philosophy of the twentieth-century liberalism . . . differs from that of the liberalism of the past. It is pragmatic and secular placing its reliance on man and on his capacity to find through trial and error experimentation the means to solve his political, social, and economic problems. (1)
Volkomer then cites the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt and Truman as "strongly pragmatic and secular."
Secular? I wish I could agree entirely with him. Approximately 80% of the world's people still fall prey to the unfalsifiable language of theistic religion, and rituals; and in America particularly, the number of believers is still rising. Moreover, if our nation were truly liberal and secular, our citizens would allow openly admitted non-believers to be elected to high office in the government.
Nevertheless, I agree with Volkomer that liberalism is not a static concept. And, though I am not overly interested in chronological order, I do wish to relate some of the first stirrings and changes of liberalism.
However, it is important to understand that even under the administration of Plato's philosopher kings, the nature of liberalism would evolve because, as is the case that with every advance in knowledge new questions arise; so too, will liberalism change to meet new challenges.
My major concern is to show that whatever evolutionary changes are witnessed in its history, whether its beginnings can be found under the aegis of religion or outside of it, there are five fundamental requirements for it that must never be forsaken: reason, individuality, freedom (personal and political), and a news media free of politics and big business.
Unfortunately these requirements also give rein to a cacophony of opinions and acts vented with malice but also, if not with ill will, too often with little thought to their consequences. The problems of the world attest to that, but it is the price of freedom.
Moreover, the leaders of a nation shall 1) forever be held responsible by its citizens through the unrestricted right to vote, and 2) that all governmental affairs shall be decided upon, not through deep pockets, influence peddlers, business, and the military, with the consent and for the good of its people -- hopefully through reason.
This, in my view, is the ideal that our forefathers had in mind. However, over the years it has been seriously eroded. The fault lies with our citizens themselves and our schooling institutions. The latter are ridden by politics as much as are our leaders and are equally at fault despite the good they have accomplished, for their neglect in teaching our citizens the ability to distinguish the abuse of language from its proper use.
As George Orwell so aptly conveyed in his book 1984, those governments that control language control the minds, the will, and the actions of their citizens.
Moreover, the framers of our constitution would be turning over in their graves if they could know the extent to which the concept of a god and the influence of religious authorities has infiltrated our governmental politics and policies, our flag salute, our money, and public ceremonies.
This is an era in which the policies and the character of our government are influenced by manipulation of the media, lobbyists, big business and, now theistic religion with its resurgence in America. The installation of our leaders can be bought by those with the deepest pockets, while those, who are competent to lead, are deprived of that opportunity by money and character assassination. Many of our citizens see no point in voting and are asking whether this nation really is a democracy when citizens are deprived, by the Supreme Court (2001), of having their votes counted.
In the past decade of so, liberalism has long been the whipping boy in presidential elections. A deliberate campaign, to malign liberalism, has undermined its honorable history of value to our nation, even as those who have done so benefit, and have benefited, from its principles and the adherence to it by some of the most notable presidents of our two-hundred-and-a-quarter-year existence, since our forefathers included the concepts of liberalism, when they broke the yoke of the British Empire, and inscribed them in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Through artful machinations and use of linguistic cat-o'-nine-tails, anti-liberalists have cast grave doubt and suspicion upon liberalism in the minds of much of our citizenry.
By the former, the term is declared to apply to big-spending, wild-eyed, bleeding hearts, and big government advocates. And, the source of such negativity is the Republican right-wing fanatical conservatives who revert to the use of emotion instead of reason. Their grip on the party, controls its policies. For instance, despite the fact that the previous liberal administration had accumulated a huge surplus, the Republicans, who tend not to be liberals, in a short period of time, not only eliminated it but has raised our national debt to over seven trillion dollars -- and rising. But even more despicable is the anti-liberalist's habit of diminishing federal aid to the helpless and unfortunate:Instead of blaming themselves, conservatives prefer to blame the victim: those who are poor must be insufficiently energetic, imbued with inadequate moral fiber, or just plain dumb. (2)
Just as there are many people, including politicians, who
are reluctant to admit their anti-theistic inclinations, so too, many or our
citizens, instead of being proud of their heritage, liberalism, and its
historically honorable designation, are intimidated into not admitting they are
liberals. This is the state of affairs today.
But the decline of respect for the principles of
liberalism especially lies, also, at the doors of our class rooms. Despite
enormous advances in our schooling institutions, we have been cheated by them
and the powers that be, of the benefits of understanding the abuses of language
foisted upon us.
A true education requires that we be educated in the
distinction between falsifiable and unfalsifiable language.
Our "educational" institutions, which have done
so well in schooling and so poorly in educating our citizenry, are largely
guilty of neglecting to demand a more intense emphasis on the uses and abuses of
language, particularly with unfalsifiable language and the use of such terms as
'truth' and 'knowledge.'
Such education would enable our citizens to see through
the deliberate obfuscation exercised 1) in politics, 2) uninformatively in
society at large, and 3) particularly by fanatics, not to mention the poor
quality of thinking among much of the citizenry of our nation.
Unfortunately our citizenry does not demand courses in the
schooling process that would develop critical and analytical thinking attitudes
and techniques. Moreover, most of our teachers, themselves, not understanding
the nuances of such thinking, not having been so educated, are unqualified to
teach the subject.
Most liberals, naturally because of nurturing or osmosis,
tend to exercise such principles and techniques without understanding them.
Consequently they give little thought to the need for the schooling process to
include them as class studies.
This said, it is my intent here, to review the
historical background and the evolution of liberal principles thanks to renowned
philosophers of the past who posited, and of the present who posit, the liberal
concepts that the framers of our constitution had the wisdom to incorporate in
founding our nation.
One of the most shameful acts of anti-liberalists is their
deliberate negative use of the term 'liberal' in order to satisfy their
insatiable hunger for votes of the uninformed.
Apparently a majority of our citizenry has long
forgotten the heritage and history of our nation which was founded on liberal
philosophy and principles. Is it any wonder, then, that so many of our citizens
are unable to recognize the devastating damage and results to the basic
principles of our nation caused by the anti-liberalists?
Consider for example:
1) our government's refusal to allow research on stem cells,
2) denying legal representation to prisoners (some, American citizens) under the guise of military prerogatives,
3) weakening the separation of church and state,
4) refusal to cooperate with the UN to protect the environment and before invading Iraq,
5) denying women control over their own bodies,
6) denying many of our citizens the right of legal commitment to whomever they love,
7) denying the right to sex between two consenting citizens behind the constitutional security of their homes,
8) instituting the most hegemonic and secretive administration in the history of our nation,
9) invading the privacy of our homes,
10) enlarging the powers of the central government in contradiction of a presidential campaign incantation: "small government,"
11) undermining the liberal accomplishment favorable to the general public, achieved by the "New Deal" in the Franklin Roosevelt administration, etc.,
12) expanding encroachment of developers' powers, to appropriate, i.e., grab, private property, by reinterpreting the concept of Eminent Domain.
In contrast, consider what liberalism has given to our nation.
1) Legal representation before the law.
2) Free high school education.
3) The right to vote.
4) The G. I. Bill.
5) Access to our representitives.
6) Social Security, Medicaid.
7) The Constitution.
8) Declaration of Independence.
9) Free press.
10) Women's Rights.
11) Protection Under the law.
12) Innocent Until proven guilty.
13) Freedom to Travel.
14) Personal Rights.
15) Political Rights.
16) Freedom of Religion.
17) Freedom from Religion.
18) Civil Rights.
19) Environmental Protection.
20) And much more.
Given the above, my primary concern is to encourage a
resurgence of the acceptance of the doctrine upon which our forefathers founded
this nation. After presenting some background for the doctrine of
liberalism, I
shall delineate its elements, their division into two schools of thought, and
suggest the method by which the problems of liberalism can be overcome giving
the doctrine a unity that it badly needs.
It is evident, of course, that a paper limited as this is
could not possibly deal with liberalism in its entire (world-wide) scope.
It would be extremely difficult, indeed, to discourse
about the Philosophy of liberalism without at least mentioning its historical
beginning. However, it is not an easy task to extricate that beginning from the
history of mankind. In an absolute sense, we cannot say that liberalism
"started" at such and such a date. So long as there has been man,
there has been at least a trace of liberalism, however meager, in thought if not
in action.
The use of the words "liberal" and "liberalism" to denote a particular social philosophy does not appear to occur earlier than the first decade of the nineteenth century. But the thing to which the words are applied is older. It can be traced back to Greek thought; some of its ideas, especially as to the importance of the free play of intelligence, may be found notably expressed in the funeral oration attributed to Pericles. (3)
I shall restrict myself to an examination only of a
limited period within which liberalism became a recognized concept.
It is necessary, however, before arriving at specific
periods to look into the soil where the seeds of liberalism lay, gaining
nutrition for the time when they would break out into the light of day.
The period of the Renaissance has been called the period
of intellectual awakening. No longer was man bound only to the dictums of
authority in the form of the church and the scriptures. Man's life was no longer
to be conducted only in accordance with the rules laid down as necessary for the
attainment of a good afterlife, as St. Augustine so prolifically proselytized.
The West, in the late part of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, looked to the original Greek and Roman literature, philosophy, and
historical and scientific treatises.
Man's concept of himself and the universe took a drastic
turn from the medieval concepts foisted upon him by the organized church. As a
consequence, the scientific interests concerning nature, which were stirring in
the fourteenth century, blossomed in great strength to revolutionize the
concepts of the universe and man's relation to it.
Investigation into nature, and especially in the field of
astronomy, stimulated our minds to such a degree that reflective and creative
activity, until now subjugated by the church, manifested itself in a slow but
irresistible forward drive.
A good part of mankind was free at last!
Free from the
apron strings of transcendental paternity, owing allegiance only to ideas of its
own choosing, with no fear of an afterlife in purgatory.
The West saw that the Greeks and the Romans had built an
enduring and magnificent civilization without recourse to revelations and
supernatural sanctions of faith in a privileged origin and destiny for man.
Man, at last, could turn his mind from what might become
of him in the hereafter to what he might be able to accomplish here on earth, in
his daily life through his ingenuity and capacities.
The shackles that bound men's minds were being destroyed
for those who chose to be free. It was during this "rebirth," of man
that tremendous achievements took place which today effect our concepts in every
phase of life.
To this period we owe the revival of learning, rise of
science and the fine arts, recognition of humanism, and the need for education.
Only through individual unchanneled thought and expression was all this
possible. Individualism was beginning to stir; and its assertion was being
manifested in every phase of the newly found fields of expression. True, there
was suppression, but suppression was not enough to keep men from thinking and
learning.
Especially to the rise of science does
liberalism owe a
great deal. It was the great achievements which science gave to the world
that snapped the chains that held men prisoners to preconceived authoritarianism.
Men like Galilei, Kepler, Copernicus, and a host of others, led the way at risk
to their lives. They were followed in later centuries by Newton, Laplace,
Herschel, Bessel, Fraunhofer, Bunsen, and Kerchoff, to mention a few. To the men
in the above order starting with Newton, we owe among other things: the laws of
motion and gravitation; the Nebular Hypothesis which though it does not apply to
the formation of our solar system, might very well hold for the formation of
stellar systems; improvement of the telescope; distance of the stars through the
determination of the stellar parallax. The last names are important in the field
of spectrum analysis revealing the chemical composition of the sun and distant
stars.
What dogmatisms could stand against the weight of such
achievements?
In the distant past, only 2 percent of the,
considerably less, population did not believe in a god. Today, well over 20
percent do not. However, billions of dollars are continually being pored into
the many forms of communications media by theistic authorities. And even though
media reporters tend to be liberals, the media, controlled by heads of business,
offer little to no counter information of anti-theistic concepts. They are,
after all, money making conglomerates and cater to what a theistically oriented
citizenry wants to hear. President George W. Bush frequently espouses his
born-again Christianity. The actor, Mel Gibson tweaks sympathy for the legend of
Christ's crucifixion in gory depiction. On and on it goes infecting every day of
our lives. Little true education is being offered in our schooling institutions
saturated with true-believing teachers -- and doctors. For these reasons, is it any wonder that
there is a resurgence of " theistic faith among the uneducated and
uninformed"?
Art, too, had its effect. It shifted attention from
transcendentalism to the common man. We find great emphasis on the common man in
such paintings as Courbet's "The Stone Breakers" (1849),
"Uprising" by Daumier (1830-1848), "Waitress in a Beer
Garden" by Manet (1879, and "The Burghers of Calais" by Rodin
(1884-1888), not to mention later abstract and revolutionary mundane art forms.
Then we find such names as Wordsworth pleading for a
return to nature, Carlyle waging battle against utilitarianism, Ruskin preaching
the social importance of art, and Coleridge pleading for enduring institutions.
However, it is to the progress of science and invention
that liberalism owes most. These brought about the industrial
revolution. Liberalism found a fertile field in the rising commercial middle
class for it pitted itself against the landed feudal aristocracy. Science was
taken into the folds of production, and there was such a demand for trained
specialists that it could not be met. Until that time only the aristocracies had
the privilege of obtaining schooling or an education. The commercial class,
however, had gained such power that they could begin to demand certain reforms.
For one thing schooling had to be made accessible to the middle classes. When
this was achieved, man's individualism really began to assert itself, for
schooling leads to thinking, and thinking leads to the desire for expression.
It
was with the development of these qualities that liberalism first began to make
itself felt with recognizable strength.
Liberalism, however, since the first period of its
pronouncement had had a hazardous and checkered career. By locating and
describing the various concepts left in its wake, we may determine to some
degree its import for the present and the future.
Therefore, it is to be seen if to these various concepts
there is not some method which might be applied in order to bring forth the best
in each. Hazardous and checkered as its career has been, it, nevertheless has
left an indelible mark upon the societies of most citizens of the world.
The doctrine of liberalism did not receive recognition
until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But the ideological roots of
liberalism were to be found in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
As for the "meaning," purpose, or idea of liberalism, when it was in
the first stages of development, we find it meant the
. . . freedom of individuals from the restrictions imposed by state, church, class, and social custom. (4)
But 'freedom' is an abstract and relative term.
Too
many of us are slaves to our ignorance of the damage that the abuse of language
does to our capacity to think clearly, critically, and analytically resulting in
decisions and actions that are detrimental to our lives and society.
It is obvious, however, that all restrictions could not
be abolished; else how could order be maintained, contracts and morality upheld?
Therefore, it would be safe to say that liberalism's chief motive was to test
these restrictions in the glaring light of reason and the practicality of
utility. Thus the liberalist offered a challenge to the conservatives who still
feel, to this day that, traditions and history should determined the question of
right.
What are the liberties which constitute the doctrine,
liberalism?
It is surprising to note, in the seventeenth century, a
demand for liberty in the exercise of law since it is obvious that law also
restricts an individual. However, the purpose for such a demand is explained in
that an entire community can be free only if each individual is free from fear
of coercion, or infringement of his rights or property. "Liberty"
means the right to be protected by law against arbitrary governments, despots,
barbaric monarchies, and especially against barbaric or capricious individuals.
John Locke very aptly remarked:
Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes and by stated rules of right and property to secure them peace and quiet. . . . For all the power the government has, being only for the good of society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that both the people must know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law, and the rulers too kept within their due bounds---.[My italics] (5)
Civil liberty is liberty only when the government is
impartially administered for the sole good of the entire community and
protection afforded for the rights under the law of each individual regardless
of class, sex, race, or position as long as one's rights do not infringe upon
those of others. Unfortunately, some of the powers of government are manipulated
to win votes for re-election.
Law is essential to liberty.
It should be observed that
it is not law as a king of despotic force but, rather, law based on principles
which men have discovered to be best for society as a whole which gives liberty.
However, there is a liberty which strikes closer to home for each individual
than any of the other liberties. That is personal liberty. For even law, based
on principles, does not mean much when it is exercised by other men unless those
affected by the laws are free and able, intellectually and/or peacefully, to
express their opinions in regard to the manner in which those laws are being
exercised.
The problem of Democracy was seen to be not solved, hardly more than externally touched by establishment of universal suffrage and representative government. As Havelock Ellis has said, "We see now that the vote and the ballot box do not make the voter free from external pressure; and which is of more consequence, they do not necessarily free him from his own slavish instincts." (6)
We must remember, also, that laws in one age or one
section of the world may be oppressive laws in a later age or another part of
the world. Certainly the laws of slavery, for one, segregation laws, Adolph
Hitler's and Saddam Hussein's laws, and in our own nation laws against gay
marriages are perfect examples of that. We must be constantly aware whether and
to what degree the content of the existing laws may be oppressive whether to all
or to some. Liberty, therefore, is to be obtained not only by laws, but also by
the abolition of laws, when they are discovered to be too oppressive for the
good of the entire community, and also by the removal of tyrannical and
ideological administrations which, for their own ends, would suppress the
personal liberties.
Such abolition and removal, if to be achieved without
violence, can be done only if a people are permitted their personal liberties.
To be sure personal liberty is a concept not easy to define. But it is for these
liberties, however vague, when suppressed, that the passions and feelings of
mankind rise to the highest pitch.
These liberties are freedom of thought, speech, religion,
press, and peaceable assembly and discussion. The vagueness which surrounds
these concepts, however, should not be overlooked.
Thought is the basis of all these personal liberties.
And
liberty of thought is
freedom from inquisition into opinions that a man forms in his own mind. (7)
But freedom of thought means very little if one is not
free to exchange those thoughts. We must not forget either that there is a limit
to which freedom of speech extends, whereupon it becomes indistinguishable from
action which is intent to incite disorder such as, to cite an overly used
expression, shouting "fire!" in a theater when there is none.
In religion, too, we find the ultimate problem is the
right to freedom of thought and expression, i.e., to choose to believe in and
worship a god as we please, not at all, and even to choose to participate in
anti-theistic religions.
From an educational point of view, however, we do not
have the freedom in our pre-college schools, the early years of developing
important attributes of thinking, to examine the meanings of unfalsifiable theistic terminology.
There was and is a diversity of religions in the world.
Some included human and still include animal sacrifices as a means of
expression. Clearly, liberalism does not mean this kind of freedom of
expression. Paul Hutchinson, to the contrary, wrote in Life Magazine,
many years ago, that we should respect every man bowing before his god even if
his forms of worship are sometimes repellent. Liberalism means, instead, a right
to worship and to freedom of thought and expression which excludes injury to
others and upholds public order.
But, 'injury', too, is a vague term.
Injury to minds, by
the abuse of language that fosters ignorance, does harm that begets immense
harm.
Socrates admonished that "the unexamined life is not
worth living." Is not one being educationally injured when one is denied
the instructional means to examine the unfalsifiable language, particularly
theistic, that is a
major force in forming one's ideas, actions, and inter-relations with his fellow
citizens and other citizens of the world?
Of prime importance is the freedom to choose those by
whom we are to be governed. Our liberties cannot be assured or maintained if we
lose or are denied the right to our own choice of representatives.
However, since we elect them only after they have been
chosen by the powerful and influential for us to choose from, it is unfortunate,
for many reasons, that the wrong leaders are so often elected.
Clearly each of us cannot be represented by our choice in
the strict sense of the word. It is a physical impossibility for each of us to
have his own choice. Therefore, what we do, as the theory goes, is come to an
agreement whereby we will abide by the rule of the majority (actually the
totality of the electoral college) in choosing our representatives. Upon the
election of those individuals they automatically, in theory at least, become the
representatives of the minority also.
The weakness in the concept of the electoral college,
however, is that if a candidate wins by a majority of even one vote, in any
given state, that candidate wins all the electoral votes in that state. Thereby
the 49 percent of the citizens actually are not having their wishes recognized.
This is the case, not because we agree to it, but because the law was imposed
upon us by men in a distant age and no one has taken the initiative to change
it.
Rousseau, however, showed that the sovereignty of a
nation was in the hands of the people and that the "general will" was expressed in
the majority vote.
This, of course flies in the face of evidence, first
because the "general will" is a hypostatization, a metaphor, not a
reality, and second, because evidence shows that some majorities rule and some
don't as in the case or the electoral college, Supreme Court vs a lower State
court's majority vote, and that of a popular majority: example Bush vs Gore
2001).
To be sure the doctrine of popular sovereignty has a
different origin from that of the doctrine of civil liberties. But
liberalism,
today, has come to include all concepts which make for further
"freedom" of individuals. And it is through popular sovereignty that
liberty is sought, even if not achieved.
It is to be remembered that both Rousseau and John Staurt
Mill believed that there was no justification in nature for a hierarchy of
rulers and slaves, but, rather, that government is merely a trusty of the people
to be cashiered by them at their will. But Mill believed that popular
sovereignty was a threat to individual freedoms. He felt that society should
interfere only if there was the possibility of harm to others.
This conduct (of an individual in a society) consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests which , either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person's bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labors and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavor to withhold fulfillment. Nor is this all society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going to the length of violating any of their constituted rights. (8)
This, of course is saying too much, for who is to
judge what is harm and when someone is being harmed.
All nations are plagued with a hierarchy of classes,
consequently, the struggle for freedom, when pushed, also becomes a struggle for
equality.
It is a caste system of a sort and in such a system we
find restrictions of a religious or legal as well as social nature. For instance
consider the present (the year 2005) in which exists the classes of the
extremely rich and the poor. To cite a
few other examples: In our own political system it is not the people who choose the
men as candidates for whom they are to vote. Rather, such an honor is reserved
for the class of the influentially strong. Unlimited education and health insurance
are not free to all who wish them in the United States. They are reserved for
those who can afford them, and for the wealthy. Those who by nature are not
afflicted by the hidden face of inequality, i.e., the inability to reason among
others, or by nature are exceptional and/or excellent at study and have a chance
to compete for scholarships, get to college. And equal justice under the law? --
if you can afford the very best lawyers. There is no end to possible
examples. But I shall give only one more; and to this as well as to education,
Mill, himself gave attention, i.e., the equality of rights for women.
Wives should have the same rights and should receive the protection of the law, in the same manner as all other persons. (9)
To us who have taken women suffrage for granted, it
might do well to realize that there are still a few countries where suffrage is
not accorded.
In early liberal ideas, the thinkers advocated removal of
restrictions that hampered the bourgeoisie. John Locke insisted upon the right
to private property. This right, of course, went hand in hand with other
personal rights of free speech, etc., which these thinkers rightly thought it
was the duty of the government to insure and protect. These principles were
still in force in the middle of the nineteenth century when conservatism
represented the interests of landed property. It stood, also, for a state
that insisted on being paternalistic and patriarchal. The
liberalists saw it as a state that restricts action, therefore, they sought to evade or
circumscribe its power.
Liberalism was predominantly a middle class movement.
One
of its chief doctrines was the sanctity of private property which included the
right to dispose of it as the desire warranted so long as there was no
infringement upon the rights of others. And in like manner it was felt that
restrictions should be removed from the activities of businessmen. Thus emerged
the policy "Laissez Faire" advocated by the Physiocrats, Adam Smith,
and the Manchester School, in the early and middle eighteenth century. An
industrial revolution had taken place. Natural law was regarded as more
fundamental than man-made "artificial laws."
As a consequence, the Physiocrats, from whom Adam Smith
took his cue, identified natural law with laws of free industrial production and
free commercial exchange. But, France at that time was an agricultural country
and the Physiocrats insisted that land was the source of a nations' wealth.
In
any event, Freedom in economics was identified with absence of government
action. "Laissez Faire" liberalism was the result.
Bentham carried it a little further insisting that every
restriction upon individual liberty whether economically politically or
otherwise was a source of pain, and as a consequence limited one's pleasure.
This applied not only to economics but to every other relevant field. For
Bentham, the criterion of all law, i.e., all the efforts of government, is its
effect upon the total happiness for the greatest number. He was not an advocate
of natural rights, however. He felt that consequences, measure of policy, and
judgment in the lives of individuals, not natural rights, were to be criteria.
Mill agreed with Bentham in that the happiness of the
individual could be achieved only through the "Laissez Faire" policy.
Mill, however, would subject the individual's pursuit of happiness to the well
being of the community as a whole. This of course gave the hint to government to
act when the greatest good for the greatest number was at question even though
Mill set limits within which government had the right to act.
Among other considerations, then, the liberal movement is
an attack on restrictions.
Yet, no sooner did these old restrictions fall by the
wayside when new ones replaced them.
It is in these new restrictions that we find a shift of
ground or a new branch of liberalism stemming from the old.
Whereas the earliest liberalism did away with restrictive
local tariffs and established large free trade units, the newer branch took note
of the shocking sweatshop conditions existent in the factories and the mines.
Child labor laws had to be passed and laws such as the worker's compensation
acts, employers' liability laws, reduction of hours of labor, and a labor code
to protect individuals who were working themselves to death for a pittance.
At first the liberalists were extremely reluctant to
allow such interference for it abrogated the right of free contract.
Along with freedom of contract, however, arose the
question of association.
Capital felt it had the right to form associations, such
as trusts and monopolies, which tended to increase its power. As a consequence,
it became the duty of liberalism to protect individuals against unrestricted use
of that power. Consequently, trade unions were formed to better offer that
protection.
Here we see the issue of equality coming to the fore.
One of the main purposes of the union was to bring about
a more equitable relationship between the worker and the employer.
But as the old adage implies, power is like an addictive
drug demanding more power. Now the problem of the oppressive capacities of trade
unions had to be dealt with. As a consequence the need for restrictions of some
sort had become glaringly evident both in industry and in labor. It was here
that the split in the ranks of liberalism began. There were the diehards of the
old school who insisted that the individualistic freedom is of prime importance
whereas the new school of thought was collectivistic liberalism that is
. . . associated with the use of governmental action for the aid of those at economic disadvantage and for alleviation of their conditions. (10)
However, the crack in the foundation of liberalism had
not at first been evident having been hidden by the optimism of the Victorian
era.
It was only after a social upheaval brought about by
wars, competition among classes, and intermingling of races that the weaknesses
of the old liberalism became so obvious that its inefficiency in application
stood out like a sore thumb. It seemed as though liberalism had reached its end,
and the aura that attached itself to the doctrine at that time was, at least,
according to John Dewey
. . . a large part of the belief now so current, that all liberalism is an outmoded doctrine. (11)
But the problem of obtaining freedom was far from being at an end. Instead, it was transformed into a much greater problem, such that an entire new social order would have to be established,
possessed of a spiritual authority that would nurture and direct the inner as well as the outer life of individuals. The problem of science was no longer merely technological applications for increase of material productivity, but imbuing the minds of individuals with the spirit of reasonableness fostered by social organization and contributing to its development. (12)
Our friends of the old school would still swear by
their principles of liberalism, and certainly its basic values, though some are
vague, are enduring and to be clasped with an iron grip by every individual.
Liberty, inherent capacities of individuals, free intelligent inquiry,
discussion and expression, these were the bulwarks of early liberalism -- long may
they stand.
But they are not and were not sufficient when they were
forced to go beyond the scope with which they contented themselves in the
earlier period. The liberalists were not then concerned with the problem of
equality nor with any feeling of responsibility for contributing to the
furtherance of their fellowman. At that time, it was a question of each
individual having the right to "row his own boat" protected by law.
It
was the failure of the early liberalist to see that effective liberty would
always be dependent upon the social conditions of a particular age which left
them unequipped to cope with new social changes.
Bentham, for instance, insisted upon a minimum of
interference upon the lives of individuals by their rulers contending that the
self-interest of the ruler must give way to the interests of his subjects. He
failed to see, however, that forces of production were converging in such a way
as to concentrate a like power of self-interest in the hands of a few whereby
those few would have the same power of which he (Bentham) would deprive the
ruler. It is evident something had to be done. But, to do it entailed the
establishment of social control of economic forces in order for an approach to
economic equality and liberty to be achieved.
Even today the old argument of self-dependence,
initiative, property rights, and a multitude of others is being bandied about by
the individualistic school in order to retard the growing awareness for the need
of even more social institutions to bring about a more equitable relationship
between the leaders of big business and the common man. Yet, it is these
individuals who are creating the conditions that are forcing such awareness
upon society.
The scope of this paper will not allow further
development or exposition of the social problems that the "Laissez
Faire" individualists, for their own reasons, chose to overlook.
In any case, I shall attempt to show the possible
consequences inherent in their neglect to solve problems, and the means through
which they could if they had chosen to.
Inasmuch as "property" has a much broader
meaning than in earlier concepts of liberalism, it is inherent in the policy of
"Laissez Faire" that someone's natural rights and property will be
infringed upon.
Not for many years, has "property" been defined
merely as a physical object, nor was it even for John Locke. For decades, it has
been almost all-inclusive. One's reputation, appearance, abilities, legal
rights, "natural rights," good will, trade name, thoughts, ideals,
right to exclude, are aspects of property. The latter is based on the joint
expectation of excluder and excluded, and that the sovereignty will back up that
right. Property means all this and more as well as one's dominion over physical
things that are the case by law.
Property is also a form of sovereignty since it rules
over things. It is not synonymous with possession, however. It is more to be
considered a right to exclude other persons, and a relationship pertaining to
persons about things. It is for this reason that it was possible for such power
as was and is achieved through "Laissez Faire" to be accumulated.
It should be obvious that these powers infringe upon the
natural rights of other individuals, for surely it is the natural right of other
individuals to retain their property and protect their right to exclusion
without having to succumb to productive and economic forces built up by an
accumulation and concentration of this power in the hands of the few. Or is it?
Landed property can be condemned by the government "for the public
good." It is because of such economic and social coercion that other civil
rights tend to become meaningless.
And now as a result of the 2005-Supreme Court reinterpretation of eminent
domain, Developers can appropriate private property to build businesses that
will "improve the economy" by "supplying more opportunities for
the creation of jobs," with "just" compensation of course.
Yet to be determined is how it is possible to "compensate" for one's
love and enjoyment of his home, community, location, and personal relationships
that mean more to him than money can buy.
That the competitive system, which was thought of, by early liberals, as a means by which the latent abilities of individuals were to be evoked and directed into socially useful channels, is now a state of scarcely disguised battle hardly needs to be dwelt upon. That the control of the means of production by the few in legal possession operates as a standing agency of coercion of the many, may need emphasis in statement, but is surely evident to one who is willing to observe and honestly report the existing scene. It is foolish to regard the political state as the only agency now endowed with coercive power. Its exercise of this power is pale in contrast with that exercised by concentrated and organized property interests. (13)
Back of the appropriation of the few of the material resources of society lies the appropriation of the few in behalf of their own ends of the cultural, the spiritual, resources that are the products, not of the individuals who have taken possession but, of the cooperative work of humanity. (14)
It is obvious that big business exercises
flagrant infringements and economic repression upon the rights of both individuals and
small businesses.
The problem of liberalism today is to overcome these
conditions by instigating a new social order. But this can be done only if
science fulfills a task that till now, it has greatly neglected, i.e.,
. . . imbuing the minds or individuals with the spirit of reasonableness fostered by social organization (and the spirit of) contributing to its development. (15)
That it was overlooked but still arose from the fulfillment of early liberalism's concept of natural rights, i.e., "Laissez Faire," freedom of thought, expression, etc., was because of the need for social reorganization. A reorganization is that that is possible only as science forces its responsibility of discovering how and why individuals behave as they do, and after discovering this, finds a means of educating the public to absorb and utilize its findings to the betterment of society.
Education in its full meaning includes all the influences that go to form the attitudes and dispositions (of desire as well as belief) which constitute dominant habits of mind and character. (16)
This is a rather broad and general "definition of
education that I feel requires at least a little specificity.
Clearly, as I've indicated above, it is evident that our
schooling institutions are grossly neglectful, in this regard. They pay little
attention, if any, to how ignorance of the role played by unfalsifiable language
effects, not only every aspect of our daily lives negatively but, more
importantly, the degree to which our minds can develop clear, critical, and
analytical thinking.
If our schooling institutions do not teach our citizens,
and they have not, to be able to distinguish between verifiable as opposed to
unfalsifiable language, and to the many abusive uses of the terms, 'truth' and
'knowledge,' they have neglected the most important aspect of education. Consequently, our citizens do not deserve to be recognized as having been
educated, even if well schooled.
Is it any wonder, then, that our citizens blithely accept
stopgap solutions instead of permanent ones and can be persuaded to partake of
preemptive military action against a nation offering no immanent threat to us as
in the case of George W. Bush's war on Iraq?
For more than a century, economic and material forces
have shaped our society and, as has been remarked above, this was a direct
result of the principles of early liberalism.
Security has been the goal of all our struggles, whereas
it should be a common property of all individuals especially since there is such
material abundance in the world. Security should be hand-maiden to a way of life
in which man can grow intellectually and culturally to the scope of his
abilities. By man, I mean all human beings, not a select few. And, by growth, I
mean not a snail's pace growth which requires centuries, but rapid and extensive
growth.
The only form of enduring social organization that is now possible is one in which the new forces of productivity [and security] are cooperatively controlled and used in the interests of the effective liberty and the cultural [and defensive] development of the individuals that constitute society. Such a society cannot be established by an unplanned and external convergence of the actions of separate individuals [and institutions] each of whom is bent on personal private advantage. (17) (Bracketed insertions are mine)
Surely the above speaks loudly also to such
institutions as the CIA, the FBI, and others that clearly were not communicating
with each other before February 1993 through the September 11, 2001
destruction of the twin towers and the thousands of people in them..
It is the task of science to compile the facts
that are
necessary to a planned society.
But let us be sure of what Dewey means by
"science" and what the relation of science is to true education as
opposed to mere schooling and training to manipulate numbers, words, and other
data.
Science is taught in our schools. But very largely it appears in schools simply as another study, to be acquired by much of the same method as are employed in "learning" the older studies that are part of the curriculum. If it were treated as what it is, the method of intelligence in itself in action, than the method of science would be incarnate in every branch of study and every detail of learning. [My italics.] Thought would be connected with possibility of action and every mode of action would be reviewed to see its bearing upon the habits and ideas from which it sprang. (18)
In other words, science is
inquiry, not merely "learning. It requires an inquiring, clear,
critical, and analytical mind, not one that just sops up and stores trivia and
information in the brain, not merely absorbing and memorizing facts but in
searching out how facts relate to each other and the consequences of those
relations to himself, his family, his society, and to the world."
Until now science has confined itself
mostly to
technological development. These developments having been thrust upon the world
created tremendous problems in society. No longer was schooling a culture
reserved for the "upper crust." The necessity for trained minds became
apparent when industry required large numbers of specialists to utilize the
findings of science. It became compulsory that individuals of the "lower
ranks" have access to schooling.
This called for certain mild reforms at the beginning in
order to make it possible for them to acquire it. Today, science has a similar
responsibility. This time to expose the psychological, legal, political, and
sociological facts to laymen; not as is customary, to discover them and hide
them in books which will be read only by a handful of individuals. The media, if
they can disabuse themselves of greed for money, and find the moral strength to
curtail emphasis on violence, sex, and mind-boggling mediocrity, could be, and
in some instances are, helpful in raising the reasoning abilities of our
citizens.
Also, science can make glaringly evident the deficiencies
of our educational system. Science has to compete as an active force against the
opposite forces that are found in long standing institutions and in the
concepts and habits that have grown out of them.
If we are to discredit Marx's Philosophy of the
inevitability of violence, it is necessary to examine the existing conflicts,
educational, social, economic, political, theistically religious, etc., and
"lay the cards on the table." This will require active effort on the
part not only of science but also of analytical philosophy, for there are other
forces which prefer that the truth of these matters be available only to the few
whose personal interests are at stake and who know how to twist these truths to
their own advantage. To this day, for instance, we have closed our minds to the
historical dangers that theistic religion has foisted on the world in all
of the conflicts mentioned above.
Propaganda to retain the early concepts of
liberalism
appealing to emotion rather than to reason will flow in torrents. But if science
counters these claims and exposes the facts, reason will have its chance to
interpret them, and society its chance to pass judgment.
The more the respective claims of the two are publicly and scientifically weighed, the more likely it is that the public interest will be disclosed and will be effective. (19)
Propaganda may be spread also to the effect that capitalism is responsible for our present social progress and that more such progress in on the way. The modern forces of production are those of scientific technology. But, scientific technology is nothing more than organized intelligence in action. Thus capitalism would take the credit for social advancement. But the thing it fails or refuses to recognize is that
coercion and oppression on a large scale exists. . . .these things are not the product of science and technology but of the perpetuation of old institutions and patterns untouched by scientific analysis. (20) [Italics, mine]
If these institutions had gone through a process of
change comparable in scope to the changes in science and technology, most of the
coercion and repression existing today would not be hampering social progress to
the extent that it is now.
Our legal system of property relations, in the extensive use of the
term, has lagged far behind in development as compared to our
productive and technological progress.
It is science and technology that have had the revolutionary and social effect while the legal system has been the relatively static element. (21)
It is here in the legal system, it seems to me, that
the scientific method would reap the greatest harvest. But, the harvest would be
to no avail unless, through some all embracing system of education, the facts
could be made known to everyone whereupon the use of reason, by the many, a
rational working economic and social system could be instigated for the
betterment of all mankind as against for the powerful few.
Aside from the fact that a defining characteristic of
science is that it is self corrective, and relies on the language of
mathematics, equally important is that it is founded, not only on observation,
but also on the application of reason in every aspect of it.
In today's society the term 'science' is used in the
strangest ways. We speak of a scientific cleaning of cesspools, of scientific
this and that. There is hardly a commercial venture that is not spoken of as
scientific.
I wish to cut through such abusive uses of the term and to
place emphasis on the role of reason in science.
Once scientists have accumulated a host of facts from
observation, the application of reason comes into play eventually by the
world-wide community of science. The criterion of methodical reasoning is
then applied to our existing knowledge.
Facts mean nothing in themselves.
It is the
interpretation of the facts that is important. It may be surmised that we have
spoken of facts as if they could be accumulated once and for all. This of course
is not at all the case. It is a recognized fact that we live in a changing
world, in Platonic terms a "world of appearances." The facts of today
may be obsolete tomorrow. But if we were to let recognition of this condition
deter us from reasoning upon these facts we should indeed give up all hope of
achievement of social progress.
But let us consider -- the whole of science is built on
the ruins of opinions. What does it matter if some of our opinions are shown to
be false on the discovery of new facts? Moreover, it is not sufficient to have
an opinion. It must be examined in the arena of other opinions. Error in an
analytical mind contributes to the finding of truth.
Whatever the facts are in any era, they must be weighed.
That the facts come to us as experience is of prime importance, for experience
is fallible and we learn the error of our judgments about experiences by further
experiences. In like manner the facts that we wish the scientific method to
expose are to be weighed in the light of further facts of which they will be
compared and judged. The early liberalists
. . . put forward their ideas as immutable truths, good at all times and places; they had no idea of historic relativity either in general or in its application to themselves. (22)
This of course left no alternative in case (as they
were) of being wrong. One would, then, be left on the proverbial limb.
There are no
alternatives in such a method. This is the result of a lack of education in the
indiscriminate use of language.
Advocates of liberalism must realize that society is in
flux, and principles must be altered to fit the facts of a given society and a
certain time. This is the task of reason.
Consider the thinking of our forefathers when they framed
our constitution and Declaration of independence. They had the foresight to
write them in a language that would be open to an applicable interpretation that
could be relevant to any age regardless of social or technical progress. With
due respect to Benjamin Franklin, what did they know of electricity,
automobiles, space ships, birth control, etc.?
Facts lead to experience and experience can be
self-corrective. When we do not learn from experience, we open ourselves to all
sorts of negative possibilities. When we accept a fact, we are in most cases
accepting a sociological context. For this reason, we must be even more cautious
as to the application of our reasoning processes.
Let us bear in mind, however, that learning to reason
well is not something that can be acquired by osmosis from the study of other
subjects. It is, in fact, an autonomous study. Great emphasis must be placed on
study of the uses and abuses of language.
The body of accepted beliefs which we shall accumulate
upon disclosure of sociological, legal, political, economic, and psychological
facts will give way to a later second body of beliefs upon which agreement will
be reached. This second body of beliefs will come to be known as evidence.
That
is not to say that further accumulation of facts will not alter the evidence.
Indeed, it most probably will, and only in this way will progress be obtained.
It is through the scientific method that this evidence can be compiled in any
area of experience one can imagine.
The experiences or evidence that we shall accept, will
be those which are supported by other experiences -- the more, the better.
Therefore, liberalism should make a careful study of its history and take note
of all the facts in its development. And let it be aware that
every problem that arises, personal or collective, simple or complex, is solved only by selecting material from the store of knowledge amassed in past experience and by bringing into play habits already formed. But the habits and the knowledge have to be modified to meet the new conditions. . . . The objection that the method of intelligence has been tried and failed is wholly aside from the point, since the crux of the present situation is that it has not been tried under such conditions as now exists, (23)
If liberalism is to realize its ends which are
liberty and the opportunity of individuals to secure full realization of their potentialities, (24)
then, it is incumbent upon it to continuously examine and study its history so that it may guide its own actions in the future. But let us remember that this will be possible only (and I repeat) if and when scientific analysis is utilized to imbue
the minds of individuals with the spirit of reasonableness fostered by social organization (and the spirit of) contributing to its own development. (25)
However, let us not delude ourselves about the future
of liberalism not only because of anti-intellectualism and conservative forces
but also because human nature is so multifaceted.
Even assuming that everyone acted with personal good
intentions, it is the different and diverse conceptions of what constitutes
"benefit of mankind" that causes our conflicts. If we add to that the
countless differences in the nature of our personalities, we may begin to
understand the difficulties facing liberalism.
One needs only to observe personal, national, political,
cultural, religious, and philosophical differences and the character of those in
power seeking to retain it, to understand the enormity of liberalism's task.
It is essential to remain aware of the dichotomy between
ideals and reality. Despite the efforts of our liberal forefathers to imbue our
Constitution and Declaration Of Independence with guaranteed rights, let us not
ever forget that they were not intended to apply to all the residents of our
nation; many were subjected to gross injustices.
For instance, the abolition of slavery and institution of
women's rights were goals achieved only through long and bitter struggles by
liberal-minded inclinations.
The better side of human nature enabled by the prescribed
inherent quality of those ideals guided us against unjust decisions stemming
from a diversity of human sources.
However, ideals by their nature are impossible goals to
reach. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility forever to strive to achieve them.
Consequently, the character of our nation is ever in a
process of periodically alternating between liberalism and conservatism even
though our underlying ideals were meant to be inherently liberal. The nature of
that change is dependent upon the clarity of thought and ability to reason that
our citizens are capable, or not, of voting intelligently for candidates from
among those chosen for us by the political parties.
It is a fact of human nature that whatever one's position
of authority or power or responsibility to the public, for example in the
Presidency or on the Supreme Court, is, interpretations of the law and decisions will be
predicated upon upbringing, beliefs, prejudices, ambitions, and concepts of
right and wrong.
Assuming we could elect only philosopher Kings, as Plato
suggested, considering that their fundamental mantra is "to agree to
disagree," we can only hope that reason will save us despite the foibles of
human nature with all its diversity and failings.
Reason, after all is predicated on our premises.
They in
turn are based upon our nurturing, schooling, ambitions, needs, personal
experiences, prejudices, and degree of education. Each of us acts on his deepest
convictions and/or on the persuasions of his political party even when there is
evidence that it is not in his own best interests to do so.
If we have not been educated to recognize that none of us
has the absolute truth and that we must ever be on guard against making
judgments and decisions based merely on deep convictions, there is little hope
that our citizens will fully experience the ideals our liberal-minded founding
fathers planned for us.
So long as wealth, power, authority, and influence
through the manipulation, cooperation, or lack of responsibility of the media,
and the public's lack of understanding the uses and abuses of language are in
control of our personal decisions, there will be limited progress in achieving
and maintaining the goals of liberalism.
Moreover, as our leaders continue to succeed in
persuading us to apply our wealth and resources to waging wars, building
prisons, and enabling the rich to become richer at the expense of the indigent,
the helpless, and the uneducated, while offering a pittance to alleviating
poverty, supporting health programs, and educating the minds of our citizens,
while our educational institutions remain internally political emphasizing
schooling rather than educating the minds of our citizens, there is little hope
that liberalism will be well received by the general public.
The challenges for liberalism in the twenty-first
century are daunting. Scientific knowledge and technology are expanding
exponentially. Our elected leaders do not seem to be up to the task primarily
because they are not tuned to the nature of science. Their decisions are made,
too often, on the basis of politics than on the facts of science that are
verifiably evident. For instance, on the issue of stem cells, science is
required to take a backseat as is the case with the definition of what is a
person. Even as other scientists in other nations are continuing to do research
in stem cells and cloning of human beings, ours will not consider any possible
advantages of doing so. To cite, Yogi Barra, "Deja vu, "all over again."
Moreover, it is beyond understanding that any informed
person could believe that on the day of conception, the "mating" of a
male sperm and the egg of a women can be conceived to be a person; certainly
life, it existed even before the mating, but, absolutely not a person. Is it not
clear that a person is verifiably in a constant state of change, and thereby is
(his history of experiences) conditioned by his physical constitution,
environment, and experiences? Is it not true that the "mating" does
not yet possess a brain and will not for a few months?
It is a matter of great importance to have insight into
the future and some of the problems liberalism will be faced with, problems for
which it may or may not be able to contribute solutions, depending on whether
the public has relinquished its right to contribute to them.
The leaders of our governments, society, and educational
institutions too often are in the habit of making decisions for political
reasons and/or "closing the barn door after the horse is stolen."
Instead of planning ahead, they respond to problems arising from previous
decisions. Crises, which they permit, or cause, to arise and which could well
approach catastrophic proportions, are usually handled with inept crash
programs, i.e., too little, to late, and only after tremendous harm, has already
been wreaked upon us, for example, "killing the earth," and possibly
eventually the human race.
Since it is the business of science to acquire knowledge,
a full-time career in itself, it falls upon governments and their people through
their politicians to put that knowledge to good rather than to bad use. Experience, however, has shown us that governments and politicians are too often
incompetent for want of understanding the possible benefits of science. Or, they
use the achievements of science for bad purposes. These problems are already in
the making and are hidden on the draft boards of the world.
Liberalism, now, and in the past, has maintained a strong
influence on the ethics of our nation. The history of the sciences, with which
liberalism has had to deal, has shown us that major discoveries and changes in
the development of science have brought concomitant changes not only in what is
commonly called our "common sense" view of the world but especially in
concepts of morality. It is here that liberalism can exert enormous influence.
In the distant past life was cheap and our longevity was
considerably less. The advent of science, enabling us to save lives, and a
technology enabling mass destruction, have brought conflicting moralities
regarding life -- depending on the cultures at peace or at war.
World economics, too, plays a part indirectly through
science and technology. Witness America's changing attitudes about saving Israel
in view of energy consumption (and consequent shortages) made possible by
science, technology, and political maneuvering. The probable advent of a
population explosion, too, has posed new ethical questions. Even the advent of a
computer-controlled world, giving rise to such statements, as "our computer
is never wrong" makes us victims of its tyranny.
Such developments, and many other issues, have raised the
spectra of new quandaries, aggravating liberalism's efforts to deal with them,
and give rise to new questioning as to what is ethical and what is not.
New developments in detecting devices, electronic spying,
and computer invasion have already raised the frightening probability of loss of
privacy, not merely because government's "big brother" spies on us but
also because even the phone companies listen in on our private conversations --
if we can believe news reports. And, what of cell phones? You're on the air!
Science has contributed so much to the population bomb
that government itself has become unwieldy and justice as a result is either so
delayed that it ceases to be justice. Plea-bargaining becomes an economic
necessity causing our jails to have revolving doors or being over-night motels
for want of space.
In the not too distant future, computers, now able to
make simple choices of action, not programmed, will be capable of making
decisions also of moral actions. We are fast approaching the age of the cyborgs,
to a minor degree some of us are already there. As we grow old, we will merely
replace our biological organs with artificial ones that will work so efficiently
that we will one day demand the removal of biological organs before a diseased
condition demands it. Nor is the day too far distant when, like the science
fiction theme, surgeons will transplant brains into young or aging bodies.
Our television sets will be either controlled or replaced
by nano technology chips inserted in our brains that will stimulate any part of
the brain we may choose. We will not have to stir from our comfortable armchairs
to experience the most exhilarating pleasures through virtual reality or
physically drive a car. It may even enable us to communicate through mental
telepathy.
There is little doubt that our knowledge of man,
technology, and the brain, is becoming so extensive, and will more so, that we
shall be able to duplicate, in the factory, artificial replicas of ourselves and
our loved ones.
New truths will inundate us and we shall be faced with
difficult moral choices for the realities of tomorrow are hardly conceivable by
the masses of today. Such realities will cause moral upheavals because we as a
society do not keep abreast of what is about to, or eventually will, descend
upon us. Our moral decisions will be hasty ones made with insufficient
preparation in a crash-program crisis-situation.
Liberalism is already dealing with some of those issues
cited below, in the foreseeable future it will be forced to deal with others
listed and, in the distant future, with issues beyond the imagination of most of
us:
(1) Cyborgs,
(2) Cloning,
(3) Biological and artificial transplants,
(4) Extra-terrestrial intelligence and moral systems,
(5) Extra-terrestrial religion,
(6) Absence of organized religion,
(7) The possible " death of God,"
(8) Embryonic surgery,
(9) Test-tube babies,
This picture was automatically generated from Vector Markup Language data stored elsewhere in the page. Changes to this picture may be lost if the page is opened again using the application that originally generated the page. Also, changes may not be visible in browsers that support
VML.
(10) Fathers' rights (after use of their sperm),
(11) Planetary governments (and wars?),
(12) Abortion,
(13) Euthanasia,
(14) Right to die,
(15) Control of population (new laws),
(16) Social or secular religion,
(17) Undersea cities,
(18) Extra-planetary cities,
(19) Orbital cities,
(10) Generational spaceships,
(21) Alien life forms,
(22) Genetic or chromosome manipulation,
(23) Artificial intelligence,
(24) Nano technology,
(25) Global warming,
(26) Identity theft,
(27) Business intrusion into privacy,
(28) Deciding gender desired of unborn child,
(29) Stem cells,
(30) Poverty,
(31) Good Health as a right,
(32) Government by the rich,
(33) Governmental control of science,
(34) Governmental interference with personal
issues,
(35) Protection of Earth's
environment,
(36) The
politicizing of religion,
(37) Pre-designed children.
It will be the task of
liberalism, in conflict with
conservatism, to examine the degree to which science may replace religion as the
authoritative source of moral, epistemological, and metaphysical concepts such
as "knowledge is the highest virtue," and "knowledge at any
price."
Liberalism must face the daunting task of determining
what kind of knowledge is worth pursuing and what kind is not and whether there
is any moral way that progress in the attainment of knowledge can, should, or
ought to be curtailed.