The two not need be mutually exclusive. Personal well-being and happiness may depend on the perceived happiness of others. Humans are empathic creatures, for cultural and physiological/evolutionary reasons. Even if I realize that I have no obligation to others, it would not necessitate removing ‘human happiness and well-being’ from my valued outcomes.
That makes sense, but it is a belief in the humanist liberal policies that causes you to enact them for the benefit of humanity. The universal enactment of said policies couldn’t make every human being satisfied (absolute monarchists, theocrats), you essentially act to please your own desire, and justify it by claiming the benefit for humanity.
The desire for universal human happiness is an unattainable goal, like Stirner says about the “True Christian”. Why beat your brow over it?
And it didn’t say “consequentialist liberals are essentially natural rights and/or social contract supporters” narrow definition clearly incorrect.
About a page or so of text.
Liberal Relativism.
(And that video didn’t clear up anything)
How do you define humanism?
Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to our social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
This seems like a contradiction of terms. Here is a quote from Leo Strauss:
“Liberal relativism has its roots in the natural rights tradition of tolerance or in the notion that everyone has a natural right to the pursuit of happiness as he understands happiness; but in itself it is a seminary of intolerance. . . .Absolute tolerance is altogether impossible; the allegedly absolute tolerance turns into a ferocious hatred of those who have stated clearly and most forcefully that there are unchangeable standards founded in the nature of man and the nature of things.”
So the doctrine, as I see it is, “Do/think whatever you like, as long as it doesn’t prevent anyone else from doing/thinking whatever they’d like”
Is that a fair assessment?
How is this not a belief system? More specifically, a deification of true Human Rationality?
Who cares? Internal problems with liberal relativism is besides the point. And we’ve already established that not all liberals subscribe to natural-rights theory.
Perhaps you are getting conversations mixed up, as I never said otherwise.
All the ones who don’t contradict themselves subscribe to at least humanism, which designates humans as deserving of rights. How is this not natural rights theory?
Who cares? You are admittedly leaving a portion out.
But even your contention is false (or at least ignorant of the various forms of relativism): as they could hold that morals are relative to various contexts, which clearly isn’t universal (read; not humanism).
It was a few hours ago, but I think this all started when I considered pilitical ideologies and religion as analogous. You picked the fight, not me. So I figured you cared.
I said nothing about relativism. I don’t understand how that is relevant to Liberalism, except liberal relativism, which we covered. Are there more I should know about?
OK, I didn’t say relativists were humanists. Clearly that appears to be a contradiction, much like Liberal Relativism. Hence, Liberal relativists aren’t liberals. They are relativists. I could call myself a 50 year old black woman. It doesn’t mean I am, because I lack the defined criterea.
Leaving out the portion made my point though.
Except for liberal relativism? Thats what we are talking about, relativism in liberal relativism.
No, liberal relativists aren’t necessarily contradictory for the reason I already gave. A liberal be a relativist and hold said morals to certain contexts, still meeting the criteria to be a liberal.
In conclusion:
liberal + relativism /= liberal + humanism
I still contend that. Humanism is a form of natural rights theory. We went over this. Unless you plan on arguing that point, consider the matter settled.
That is a contradiction of terms. To use an example from Roderick Long, it’s akin to saying “zaxifraz is a metalic sphere, like the Washington mounument”.
See above.
You’ve already accepted that not all liberals embrace natural rights theory, its been settled that you were wrong about liberals for some time now.
No it isn’t, the political and moral philosophies are perfectly compatible for the reasons already given.
I don’t recall this occuring, could you please quote me?
If the reasons were already given, then I’ve either missed them or failed to comprehend. Could you quote or explain?
Something better, Wiki
Not all liberals believe in natural rights.
Strauss’ characterisation of relativism was one-dimensional (normative), as I’ve already said moral relativism is a broad category:
A liberal relativist could take the descriptive view and say that different cultures have different morals, not agreeing or disagreeing that there is a universal moral truth. Or a liberal relativist could take the metaethical view and say that “right” and “wrong” aren’t universal but have their origins within are various socio-economic cultures. Richard Rorty has written extensively about this.
And heres a book.
Also, just came to me, liberal puralists, yet another reason why liberals aren’t necessarily natural rights supporters or humanists.
It’s funny. I didn’t think I had explicitly claimed that “all liberals believe in universal natural rights”, and after a quick look back at the posts on this thread, it turns out I didn’t. That was a masterful strawman you set up there, you almost had me going for a while. I knew you were a cheeky monkey… If you don’t trust me, please quote me on it. Scout’s honor, I didn’t edit a thing.
When I quoted the wiki stuff, I was looking for a definition of Liberalism, because your initial challenge to it cast doubt in my mind as to whether or not I actually had the correct definition. All the Wiki stuff I found in my (admittedly cursory) scan mentioned natural rights as the foundation. You countered with the consequentialists, which I contended still beleived in Humanism, which led you to bring up the relativists and the pluralists. But all these flavors of liberalism still have a common thread, which is they all believe in some form of rights, bestowed on one group (divisible down to one individual) by another group (again, divisible down to a single individual)
It’s the granting of privilege to man by Man, as opposed to the granting of privilege to man by God. The granting of privilege, or rights still remains as a common thread. That is why I classify the two together.
Clearly false.
Natural rights - Out!
Humanist ideal - Out!
Leading us to rights…
Anthony de Jasay the worlds foremost liberal doesn’t believe in the granting of privilege.
Rights - Out!
(If not then egoism, and just about every other political philosophy is just a form of liberalism, making it a non-term)
I was merely quoting a few examples of domatized Liberalism. I should’ve included “The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf” to “mix it up a bit”. I applogize for any confusion.
Then I would argue he isn’t a liberal. How do you know he is? I’m not familiar with him. Can you sum up his positions?
I can think of a few examples that aren’t:
Islamic Republics
Deist Monarchy
Christian Communism
Also, I assume you aren’t very familiar with egoism. It makes no presumption rights whatsoever. It’s a non-value philosophy, sort of like the political equivalent to Austrian Economics. The individual will take/do/say whatever they have the power to. It does not determine whether or not said individual is justified in doing so.