The best definition of liberalism I can think of says that it's the disposition to assume that humans need and deserve as much freedom in their personal affairs as possible, and to ask what kinds of constraints are necessary to preserve that freedom. A sheep in a pen full of wolves isn't "free" in any meaningful sense, so some measures, like free education, free healthcare, a justice system and defence establishment are necessary to make sure that everyone has a fair shot at structuring their own lives as they see fit. This is list is illustrative, not necessarily comprehensive.
A big assumption here is that everybody starts off with equal means. To the extent that individuals' success or failure rests on their own decisions, the system is fair. You bet on a long shot and lose, it's your own fault; you play it safe and eke by, good for you; you strike it rich (whatever "rich" might mean contextually), well done! This system works really well so long as we can work with abstract assumptions about "human nature" in the style of the greats, like Kant, Smith, Hume, Mill, &c. For lack of knowledge how people are, we make an educated guess and extrapolate. The liberal idea would encounter serious trouble, though, if we had reason to believe that we don't all start on a level playing field, that the deck is systematically stacked in favour of some, that some of us are sheep and the rest are wolves.
There is trouble on the horizon. There was a piece in Slate a while back talking about genetic differences on IQ test results, and Steven Pinker has made a similar and more informed argument on similar lines. Some of arguments out there paint race as a big factor, but depending on your definition of race (and there are several ), I'm mixed race, so I don't have a stake in how that game, nor do I really want one. But it doesn't necessarily have to be about race at all. We've all interacted with people who just didn't seem to be able to keep up or who seemed to do effortlessly what we could only do with considerable toil. Our understanding of liberalism will work so long as the inherently disadvantaged or privileged are just marginal quantities. Most developed countries can deal fairly well with their own mentally handicapped. It would also be fine if everyone had a valuable skill. Modern service economies, which is the direction everybody seems to be moving, value only certain types of skills, and it seems that these might not be randomly distributed nor that there is a huge hump of mediocrity with a few high fliers and knuckle-draggers on either end. Rather, it seems that people are spread out in terms of intellectual ability, the distribution might depend on certain predictable factors, and intellectual ability seems to count extra relative to other abilities, at least in any country I'd want to live in.
Given that this could be the case, liberals have a lot of soul searching to do. The first big question is: does this represent a threat to the liberal way of doing things? If no, how can society be considered fair (without too much sophistry)? If yes, can liberalism or the system be reconfigured to deal with it? I mean, genetic engineering should make this a technical problem, provided everyone has equal access to improvements (note: these improvements would probably have to be chosen prenatally, so you'd be stuck with your parents' choice, like your name - is that any more liberal?). If everyone were engineered to have similar qualities, what could we still consider meritorious? Did you really earn it if you were designed from (before) birth to achieve it? If the status quo remains, the question of merit remains too, and it circles back to affirmative action-type arguments. Is a runner-up actually more deserving than the winner because the winner had inherently better odds of winning?
Without wanting to anticipate any easy answers, I'd like to get the debate rolling.
A big assumption here is that everybody starts off with equal means. To the extent that individuals' success or failure rests on their own decisions, the system is fair. You bet on a long shot and lose, it's your own fault; you play it safe and eke by, good for you; you strike it rich (whatever "rich" might mean contextually), well done! This system works really well so long as we can work with abstract assumptions about "human nature" in the style of the greats, like Kant, Smith, Hume, Mill, &c. For lack of knowledge how people are, we make an educated guess and extrapolate. The liberal idea would encounter serious trouble, though, if we had reason to believe that we don't all start on a level playing field, that the deck is systematically stacked in favour of some, that some of us are sheep and the rest are wolves.
There is trouble on the horizon. There was a piece in Slate a while back talking about genetic differences on IQ test results, and Steven Pinker has made a similar and more informed argument on similar lines. Some of arguments out there paint race as a big factor, but depending on your definition of race (and there are several ), I'm mixed race, so I don't have a stake in how that game, nor do I really want one. But it doesn't necessarily have to be about race at all. We've all interacted with people who just didn't seem to be able to keep up or who seemed to do effortlessly what we could only do with considerable toil. Our understanding of liberalism will work so long as the inherently disadvantaged or privileged are just marginal quantities. Most developed countries can deal fairly well with their own mentally handicapped. It would also be fine if everyone had a valuable skill. Modern service economies, which is the direction everybody seems to be moving, value only certain types of skills, and it seems that these might not be randomly distributed nor that there is a huge hump of mediocrity with a few high fliers and knuckle-draggers on either end. Rather, it seems that people are spread out in terms of intellectual ability, the distribution might depend on certain predictable factors, and intellectual ability seems to count extra relative to other abilities, at least in any country I'd want to live in.
Given that this could be the case, liberals have a lot of soul searching to do. The first big question is: does this represent a threat to the liberal way of doing things? If no, how can society be considered fair (without too much sophistry)? If yes, can liberalism or the system be reconfigured to deal with it? I mean, genetic engineering should make this a technical problem, provided everyone has equal access to improvements (note: these improvements would probably have to be chosen prenatally, so you'd be stuck with your parents' choice, like your name - is that any more liberal?). If everyone were engineered to have similar qualities, what could we still consider meritorious? Did you really earn it if you were designed from (before) birth to achieve it? If the status quo remains, the question of merit remains too, and it circles back to affirmative action-type arguments. Is a runner-up actually more deserving than the winner because the winner had inherently better odds of winning?
Without wanting to anticipate any easy answers, I'd like to get the debate rolling.
No comments:
Post a Comment