During Professor Thio Li-Ann's second lecture for public law, she talked about the competing forms of political ideology that could underlie constitutionalism. One part of the topic was about the possible forms of secularism. In particular liberalism. She distinguish between two types of liberalism, specifically, politcal liberalism and the contemporary strain of philosophical liberalsim. In her words, it is philosophical liberalism which has tyrannical implications as a comprehensive world view masquerading as a 'procedural' or skeletal framework for organizing Man and society. While affecting a value-neutral posture, philosophical liberalism imposes its own value system by stealth while silencing its detractors. As Professor Thio would say, this is illiberal liberalism. In her Christian book, Mind the Gap, Professor Thio states that a political ideology which opposes traditional morality, including Judeo-Christian values, is not neutral.
On the other hand, in the conception of political conception, liberalism is not a comprehensive 'doctrine' which includes "an overall theory of value, an ethical theory, an epistemology, or a controversial metaphysics of the person and society" Rather the goal of liberalism is to "provide a political framework that is neutral between such controversial comprehensive doctrines." In other words, it is a tool to manage conflict between competing world views seeking to influence law and policy. Political liberalism thus claims to be 'neutral' or thin in terms of substantive content, advancing only a few basic principles such as that of the equality of the citizens and their equal right to engage in pubic policy debates. Implicitly, it assumes that all views are morally equal. Liberalism itself apparently contains no mechanism by which to prioritize between competing substantive visions of the good; its default mechanism is to let the individual decide. This provides thin gruel unable to lend much heft to the concept of the common good and the character of the community.
I was wondering whether there could be a form of political philosophy that is more morally neutral is nature. From my legal theory class, I read the debate between Devlin and Hart about the different paradigms that can be used to assess the legislation of morality. Both legal theorist seem to present a morally neutral paradigm for legislating morality. Devlin goes with the notion of popular morality, that is the view of the masses, whilst Hart espoused the ancient utilitarian philosophy as the basis for legislating morality. I wonder whether a strictly utilitarian political philosophy is compatible with Christianity. Perhaps all the moral dogmas in the bible may be justified on utilitarian grounds. I suppose Devlin and Hart's models are not mutually exclusive and when deciding on whether to legislate on a particular issue that is morally controversial, both paradigms would give considerations that can be taken into account. We ask the question of what society thinks, and whether the thing being legislated against is inimical towards society.
No comments:
Post a Comment