The Böckenförde Dilemma” is a little out of my price range. But thanks for your responses. I’ll try my best to offer a few thoughts at a better moment.
I approached this issue differently. Not to say, liberalism—and to be more precise liberal democracy—is founded on science, not to consider origins. Rather to say, when looking at all types of regimes empirically, how they have fared socially, 1
…how they have fared materially, both collectively and individually within them, which are most conducive to individual flourishing, liberal democracy on the *evidence* has produced the best results, however fraught, imperfect and problematic. 2
This is Frances Fukuyama’s argument in The End Of History And The Last Man, as he distinguishes between History and history. Liberal democracy accommodates all the variations on it within its fundamental markers. And it is, he argues, the culmination of History as History.
The “Böckenförde Dilemma,” as you’ve defined it, doesn’t seem to the point. It makes the admitted fragilities and imperfections of liberal democracy the enemy of it—as in the perfect being the enemy of the good—as a good regime, as in the idea of “two cheers for it, but what’s the alternative?” 4
5/5
Finally, I like this characterization of the ethos of liberalism by Alexander Meiklejohn:
Where does liberalism claim to be founded on science as opposed to being in its ideal or principled workings analogous to science in trying in policy to see what works, discarding what doesn’t and keeping what evidence tells us does, till it doesn’t? 1
I don’t know what it means to say science is grounded on a mechanical philosophy, save that its province is the way things are, what effects issue from which causes as a matter or falsifiable evidence. You may be conflating science with scientism. 2
When you fly in a plane, take an effective vaccine—two of infinite examples—you have examples of science, as opposed to scientism, proving itself. 3
Respectfully, your view, if I have it correctly, that Fukuyama erred from the jump may rest on a misconception of his work that I alluded to. He never claimed history ends. 4
Of course it goes on. His argument is that History understood as an overarching view of human development resolves itself in Liberalism. That can be argued with but he’s not saying history ends. 5
.
You quite misread me. My stance is neither utilitarian or metaphysical. Liberalism as opposed to utilitarianism seeks to balance in policy what is thought good for all with the value of individual liberty. 6
In its airier analysis, utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, what conduces most to collective happiness, becomes so abstract as to be impossible strictly to apply. 7
8. There is nothing metaphysical in, as did Fukuyama, assessing all polities throughout history and concluding liberal democracy is superior when judged by the criteria I’ve mentioned. Nor have you told me what political vision is superior to it, again for all its imperfections.
9. Science’s success in materially improving our lives, reducing dread diseases, reducing poverty, eliminating or shrinking the vectors of human immiseration is a profound excellence. Not to be gainsaid. Morality and spirituality are not science’s prerogatives.
10/10 Material improvement in our lives offers us the best basis for individual flourishing, fulfilling our best capacities as we see them. There is no utopia here, no discounting of our perils and flaws. But of everything going, on the evidence, liberal democracy is our best shot.
I’ll stop so not to re-repeat myself. In sum, people are “happiest” in liberal democracies, where others wish to be. We’re not talking past each other. I’ve made an evidenced-based case for their relative superiority. Noting our ills is no answer. Thanks for the civil exchange.
Ok 1 more. “Failed miserably” compared to what? If the best places to be are liberal democracies, then that ends the argument. You offer no better place or polity and may be too quick to dismiss, as noted, progress in reducing immiseration. Truly now, my last words. Thanks again.
No comments:
Post a Comment