Critiques of liberalism

The controversy regarding the criminalization of homosexual acts under s377a of the Penal Code in Singapore remains a divisive issue of our times. I have been seeing the oft-rehashed liberal argument being quoted by those opposing criminalization of homosexual acts or supporting same-sex marriage in various forums over the internet. It goes along the lines of ‘no one should impose their values onto others using the machinery of the state.’ I really wonder whether those who adopt the ideals of liberalism as a morally neutral political philosophy have considered the criticisms against it.

I will present the critique against liberalism from the book titled Mind the Gap by Professor Thio Li-Ann that she furnished at page 253 – 259.

‘Liberalism relegates religious and moral issues to the 'private realm' of 'personal judgment.' In ordering social relationships, the only relevant public value would be individual ‘consent’

Consent is an expression of human will, propelled by human desire, which can be noble or perverse. If two men consent to consensual cannibalism, logically, all religious and moral objections are just private opinions one should keep to oneself. By allowing such action and letting individuals decode what constitutes the ‘good life’ for them, the state is being ‘neutral’, so says liberal orthodoxy. This assumes that the actions of two private persons have no impact on the broader community. This claim to state neutrality is both false and beguiling for various reasons.

In confusing and conflating the public “good” with “desire”, philosophical liberalism serves as an advocate for a particular public philosophy: it is essentially espousing hedonism, where pleasure is the central pursuit of life. It is human desire that seeks pleasure and human will that wants to realize pleasure. This valorization of self-realization is not a neutral stance to adopt.

The liberal state effectively imposes the substantive ideology of hedonism; this is expressed through individual consent as the governing basis for formulating public policy. Hedonism is an unsound public value and a poor foundation for building community.

In proposing a non-neutral theory of what is good and what constitute human nature, philosophical liberalism enters the fray not as the manager of competing interests, but as the advocate of a particular view point. This viewpoint is oppressive in demanding moral reconstruction and seeking to impose its own values by default. Its claim to promoting liberty, properly appreciated, is spurious. Philosophical liberalism reduces the liberty of those who disagree with its premises.

Flowing from the stream of relativism (where one man’s meat is another man’s poison), liberalism is intolerant in denouncing opposing views as ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘oppressive.’ While claiming to be tolerant and non-judgmental, liberalism judges non-liberal views and, in so doing, does two curious things which demonstrate its incoherence and irrationality.

First, liberalism says ‘judge not’ because it rejects any final authority. This being the case, liberalism demonstrates its own incoherence: if there are no absolute truths, why believe anything a liberal has to say? The assertion that there are no absolute truths is in itself an absolute and dogmatic statement.

Second, the call to ‘non-judgmentalism’ in relation to moral issues guises the arrogant assumption that liberal values are superior to all other world views.

Furthermore, once a radical change has been made, it brings about radical consequences, whether the change in question is ‘substantive’ or ‘procedural’ in nature. For example, it is liberals who “have legalized abortion, are in the process of legalizing homosexual marriages, and are inclined to legalize euthanasia.”

Michael Sander, Harvard professor, put clarity to the issue in his book titled Justice at page 257 “But autonomy and freedom of choice are insufficient to justify right to same-sex marriage. If government were truly neutral on the moral worth of all voluntary intimate relationships, then the state would no grounds for limiting marriage to two persons; consensual polygamous partnerships would also qualify. In fact, if the state really wanted to be neutral, and respect whatever choices individuals wished to make, it would have to adopt Michael Kinsley’s proposal and get out of the business of conferring recognition on any marriages. The real issue in the gay marriage debate is not freedom of choice but whether same-sex unions are worthy of honor and recognition by the community – whether they fulfill the purpose of the social institution of marriage.”

So having removed all those layers stymieing the true nature of the debate, I would have to say this is where the debate should lie. Even so, people will depart in their position because they affirm different values. A conservative religious person would say, “marriage is between man and woman because the bible says so”. A conservative argument independent of religion would go, “procreation is the basis for why marriage should be honored.” A person who affirms homosexual union would say, ‘homosexuality should be included as part of the traditional institution of marriage.' The divide though, is not one of conservatism vs liberalism, but a clash of values.