Customer Reviews

Against Liberalism

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In this excellent, clearly-written book, John Kekes argues that Liberalism (not "classical liberalism", but "60's liberalism") embraces aims that are inconsistent, takes a view of human nature that is naively optimistic, and promotes a conception of equality that is self-defeating. Several of the main points of this book can be summarized as follows:

1. According to Kekes, Liberals don't deny that evil is prevalent, but insist on blaming - not human nature, which they assume to be fundamentally good - but factors that interfere with the exercise of free choice, e.g. poverty, tradition, poor education, a harsh environment. Thus their all-purpose remedy for whatever ails the human race is to increase its autonomy. But since autonomous choices are frequently wicked, the remedy is counterproductive. Liberalism thus undercuts effective policy.
2. By the same token, since Liberals assume that people behave badly because of factors that limit their automony, and since only fully autonomous acts merit punishment, Liberals are often inclined to exempt evil-doers from moral responsibility. It is not uncommon for Liberals to excuse malefactors whose autonomy has been diminished - by such factors as lousy parenting or poor schools - while at the same time giving short shrift to their innocent victims. Liberalism thus undercuts moral responsibility.
3. In the Liberal conception, people are all born with innate goodness and are roughly equal in moral merit. It follows that an unequal distribution of goods is inherently objectionable and that those who are worse off must have been treated unjustly. This kind of egalitarianism alienates Liberals from the bedrock ideal of true justice, which is that people should get what they deserve. In contrast, those who take merit seriously will not find inequality objectionable in itself and are more likely to think that before we can assist those who are worse off, we must consider the possibility that they are to blame for the predicaments they find themselves in. Liberalism resists that approach and thus undercuts justice.

Condensed to a single sentence, Kekes teaches that Liberals, starting from premises that are overly optimistic and foolishly egalitarian, have a tendency - in the absence of any empirical evidence - to assume that unequal distribution is unfair, that the poor are victims of injustice, that the poor are not responsible for their bad behavior and that we can improve both individuals and societies by removing all impediments to free choice, from traditional attitudes to lousy education.

Kekes explores these issues with great verve and intelligence. The book is recommended both for Conservatives who would like a deeper understanding of Liberalism, as well as broad-minded Liberals, who don't mind challenging their own principles.

I bought this book mostly for its arguments against Rawls. I am not a fan of Rawls at all. Not a fan of Kekes, either. But I do not think that Kekes makes a convincing argument against Rawls.

Take for example Kekes's insistence that Rawls equality must be based upon the presupposition of moral desert. To say that people are equal is to say that they are equally deserving. If this charge stands, then Rawls theory, which explicitly rejected moral desert, is hypocritical.

Kekes fails to understand that Rawls arrives at equality in an entirely different manner. The veil of ignorance allows us to adopt principles of justice which apply to everybody without us knowing who we will be in once the veil is lifted and we become people.

So, if I were behind the veil, I would want everybody to be treated equally because I don't know who I am going to be once the veil is lifted. Am I going to be Black? White? Indian? Asian? Woman? Child? I cannot know, so in a purely self interested manner, I arrive at an egalitarian conclusion.

The book is entirely worth a read. Not a waste of time by any stretch. But a lot of the arguments miss the mark, in my humble opinion.

This book is worth reading for liberals and conservatives alike. I'm not, in the end, convinced that Kekes has made his case against liberalism. (I think that liberals can answer all of his charges) but he presents interesting challanges that liberals must consider. He's much more rigerous than most conservatives and actual makes arguments rather than just fighting staw men or expressing his own opinion. It's a good book both for liberals, to see what a sophisticated conservative challange to liberalism looks like, and also for conservatives who are dissatisfied with the relatively simple-minded views of someone like Kristol or Buckley (anyone who thinks that Rush Limbaugh is worth listening too will probably not be smart enough to get the book!)