09-19-2005, 05:09 AM
Hi,
I'm NOT going to be dragged into an abortion tiff. What I will say is that, while I don't agree with your blanket characterization of 'what it means to be liberal' (which is overly general and seemingly ignorant of the fact that 'liberty' can be decontested/conceived in a many different ways), you have answered your own question within your own definition of the term: it is not any less logical to say that an unborn child ought to be considered a legal individual than to say that the opposite is true.
Back to my comments re: 'liberalism' above: affirmative action is perfectly consistent with many 'liberal' conceptions of what constitutes freedom. One's definition is all about what freedom consists of. I would argue that at least some modern supporters of what is now called 'conservative' politics are little more than 19th century liberals.
You seem to me to be arguing that modern liberals are not liberals at all on the basis of the fact that their conceptions of freedom are out of line with the Lockean/Smithian variant. I would argue that a doctrine can evolve, split, and take on new meanings without becoming meaningless and that your definition is far too limiting in this day and age - you are equating what we would today refer to as a libertarian notion of property- and 'equality of rights'- based freedom with the entirety of the modern liberal tradition, and that is a mistake. Equality of opportunity is a legitimate notion that can be entailed in one's definition of 'freedom' without sacrificing one's status as a 'liberal'.
My point? Nowadays, there are all kinds of 'liberals'. When North Americans use the term 'liberal' in the popular medai, I believe that they are most often doing so as a result of the rise of the (new, as opposed to old) Rawlsian conception of the term, a move that has taken this particular modern notion of liberalism a good ways away from its Lockean roots (and fortunately so, to my mind).
Your idea that 'it's about personal freedom' does not in any way specify 'what is freedom', leaving it a bit hollow.
I'm NOT going to be dragged into an abortion tiff. What I will say is that, while I don't agree with your blanket characterization of 'what it means to be liberal' (which is overly general and seemingly ignorant of the fact that 'liberty' can be decontested/conceived in a many different ways), you have answered your own question within your own definition of the term: it is not any less logical to say that an unborn child ought to be considered a legal individual than to say that the opposite is true.
Back to my comments re: 'liberalism' above: affirmative action is perfectly consistent with many 'liberal' conceptions of what constitutes freedom. One's definition is all about what freedom consists of. I would argue that at least some modern supporters of what is now called 'conservative' politics are little more than 19th century liberals.
You seem to me to be arguing that modern liberals are not liberals at all on the basis of the fact that their conceptions of freedom are out of line with the Lockean/Smithian variant. I would argue that a doctrine can evolve, split, and take on new meanings without becoming meaningless and that your definition is far too limiting in this day and age - you are equating what we would today refer to as a libertarian notion of property- and 'equality of rights'- based freedom with the entirety of the modern liberal tradition, and that is a mistake. Equality of opportunity is a legitimate notion that can be entailed in one's definition of 'freedom' without sacrificing one's status as a 'liberal'.
My point? Nowadays, there are all kinds of 'liberals'. When North Americans use the term 'liberal' in the popular medai, I believe that they are most often doing so as a result of the rise of the (new, as opposed to old) Rawlsian conception of the term, a move that has taken this particular modern notion of liberalism a good ways away from its Lockean roots (and fortunately so, to my mind).
Your idea that 'it's about personal freedom' does not in any way specify 'what is freedom', leaving it a bit hollow.
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II