Suchergebnisse

The much-discussed contemporary revival of political theory in the Anglo-American intellectual community has for the most part been a revival of liberal theory. This should not have come as a great surprise. Most Anglo-Americans are, in one way or another, liberals; all are deeply influenced by the experience of life in liberal societies. Liberal polities have come under attack from within as well as from without, giving those who think them worthy of defense both the motive and the occasion to clarify the grounds of their partisanship.It is less often remarked that in one decisive respect, the revival of liberal theory remains rooted in the climate of moral skepticism that it has supplanted. Most contemporary liberal theorists are deeply mistrustful of what John Rawls has called "perfectionism"—the philosophic attempt to identify superior ways of life or traits of character and, once having identified them, to use them as the goals of political life. Contemporary liberal theory consists in the attempt to combine this skepticism about theories of the good life with the belief in philosophically defensible principles that regulate relations among individuals.It is my thesis that this defense of liberalism is fundamentally misguided. No form of political life can be justified without some view of what is good for individuals. In practice, liberal theorists covertly employ theories of the good. But their insistence that they do not reduces the rigor of their theories and leaves the liberal polity unnecessarily vulnerable to criticism.

THE MUCH-DISCUSSED CONTEMPORARY REVIVAL OF POLITICAL THEORY IN THE ANGLO-AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL COMMUNITY HAS FOR THE MOST PART BEEN A REVIVAL OF LIBERAL THEORY. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE COME AS A GREAT SURPRISE. MOST ANGLO-AMERICANS ARE, IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, LIBERALS; ALL ARE DEEPLY INFLUENCED BY THE EXPERIENCE OF LIFE IN LIBERAL SOCIETIES. LIBERAL POLITIES HAVE COME UNDER ATTACK FROM WITHIN AS WELL AS FROM WITHOUT, GIVING THOSE WHO THINK THEM WORTHY OF DEFENSE BOTH THE MOTIVE AND THE OCCASION TO CLARIFY THE GROUNDS OF THEIR PARTISANSHIP. IT IS LESS OFTEN REMARKED THAT IN ONE DECISIVE RESPECT, THE REVIVAL OF LIBERAL THEORY REMAINS ROOTED IN THE CLIMATE OF MORAL SKEPTICISM THAT IT HAS SUPPLANTED. MOST CONTEMPORARY LIBERAL THEORISTS ARE DEEPLY MISTRUSTFUL OF WHAT JOHN RAWLS HAS CALLED "PERFECTIONISM"-THE PHILOSOPHIC ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY SUPERIOR WAYS OF LIFE OR TRAITS OF CHARACTER AND, ONCE HAVING IDENTIFIED THEM, TO USE THEM AS THE GOALS OF POLITICAL LIFE. CONTEMPORARY LIBERAL THEORY CONSISTS IN THE ATTEMPT TO COMBINE THIS SKEPTICISM ABOUT THEORIES OF THE GOOD LIFE WITH THE BELIEF IN PHILOSOPHICALLY DEFENSIBLE PRINCIPLES THAT REGULATE RELATIONS AMONG INDIVIDUALS. IT IS MY THESIS THAT THIS DEFENSE OF LIBERALISM IS FUNDAMENTALLY MISGUIDED. NO FORM OF POLITICAL LIFE CAN BE JUSTIFIED WITHOUT SOME VIEW OF WHAT IS GOOD FOR INDIVIDUALS. IN PRACTICE, LIBERAL THEORISTS COVERTLY EMPLOY THEORIES OF THE GOOD. BUT THEIR INSISTENCE THAT THEY DO NOT REDUCES THE RIGOR OF THEIR THEORIES AND LPY: 1982

The beginnings of Japanese liberalism date from the middle of the nineteenth century and appear as a product of the enlightenment movement during the Meiji Restoration. But the termJiyushugi, today understood as equivalent toliberalismin English, has quite a different meaning in traditional Japanese usage.Jiyuconsists of two Chinese charactersJiandyumeaning "to follow oneself" or "to use self as the only source of judgment for one's behavior";shugiis translated as "principle" or "doctrine". Thus, the word has traditionally been used, with very rare exceptions, to mean egoistic and selfish behavior that deviates from social norms and is specifically heedless of others.

Civil disobedience is understood as an appeal to the public to alter certain laws or policies that the minority takes to be incompatible with the fundamental principles of morality, principles that it believes the majority to accept. The traditional requirements of accepting punishment & of acting non-violently are, with some modification, defended against critics & their rationale explained. The problem of defining civil disobedience in a constitutional system is discussed & it is argued that M.L. King & his admirers need not be considered civil disobedients. The view that the law is what the courts say it is is rejected & the implications of this, & of the refusal of the courts to adjudicate (under the "pol'al" question & other doctrines) is examined. Direct & indirect disobedience are distinguished & indirect disobedience is defended against Lockean critics who see it as essentially revolutionary. Lockean liberalism is criticized for its inability to accommodate civil disobedience as a distinctive form of pol'al activity. AA.