Liberalism and Social Contract

Liberalism and Social Contract

Charles Larmore speaks of moral complexity as it exists in a pluralistic sense. The idea of pluralism says that each and every person has their own separate conception of the good as it appears to them. It is I virtually impossible to have to separate entities come up with the same exact concept of the "Good Life" and what it holds for them. As there are these conflicts ideals that exist in each of us it is possible for our conception of the good to come under attack from competing concepts that are held by others around us. Some one who is Muslim may have a conception of the good that wants to eradicate me and my notion of the good. There needs to exist some centralized thought controlled by the state to protect each individual concept of the good that exists under the people it resides over. If pluralism is true and evident in society then there needs to exist a liberal state to have a manner of political order to protect the differing conceptions of the good that exists within it to protect the personal ideals.

The main idea that Larmore is trying to set out between the political order and personal ideals is that the Kant's idea of the right being prior to the good is essential to the protection or cooperation of these two principles. Although this is a theory from Kant it is not a metaphysical like Kant brings up, rather it is a political movement that is necessary for the protection of individual personal ideals. The right of political neutrality must take priority over any individual conception of the good. This justifies political authority as the right of neutrality is more important than the personal good because without any sort of neutrality of the state none of us would be able to keep our own ideals of what the good is and practice it in our lives. This principle of primacy of the right is a political ideal that does not need to extend into all of morality but is necessary in the manner of political order. This primacy is important in the manner that it literally allows for that personal good to exist. For a moment imagine if some one lived in Mooneyville and their conception of the good differs from everyone else around him. It is essential for this mooneyite to give primacy of the right in the political realm so he is able to hold his own conception of the good. If there were no political liberal right of neutrality then he could either be cast out of the society or even forced to change his conception of the good. Larmore brings this to point in the way of his modus vivendi which is useful to have a justice that exists in the state to protect our own conception of the good respectively.

Hume wrote of justice as an "artificial" virtue that we create to make things in life work. Larmore thinks that there is a problem with this idea of an artificial virtue, he argues that "what distinguishes an artificial virtue from a natural one (such as courage) cannot be that it fails to be Ð''instinctive,' as Hume wrote," (Larmore, 70-71) this is evident in that every virtue must be learned in some way either by teaching of the intellectual or the habituation of the moral virtues that Hume considers natural. It is important to see what Hume thought of as the "circumstances of justice" that are explained in two groups, the external and the internal that cause conflict based on wants and needs and individual concepts of the good respectively. This conflict creates a need for the virtue of justice to take care of the problems that arise. This encompasses the principle of liberal justice that is necessary for anyone to keep their conception of the good life. This modus vivendi or way of living is a means of accommodation between the political right and the individual concept of the good. It is a sort of pragmatic principle the helps us all get along in this pluralistic setting of any society. This comes of great value to each of us as individuals. This modus vivendi distinctly allows us each to hold our own point of view. All though this view is quite helpful it is not the only perspective that can be taken from this relation of the political neutrality and individual concepts of the good. Instead of this sense of accommodation we can take Kant's view of expressivism.

The expressivist view says that we "could understand political neutrality as expressing the very sort of detachment we ought to have in general toward any substantial ideal of human flourishing." The political order of the state is to express the highest ideal of the self, which is that of autonomy. The true personal ideal is the autonomy that we each possess. This view does not guarantee any sort liberalism as it can be a nonliberal principle in which the state must cultivate a primary notion of the good life in its citizens. Kant does hold that this autonomy must be taken on not only in the political order but in the individual ideals as well but this not so to Larmore who states that we do not have to make the right prior to the good in our personal ideal but it is necessary in the form of the political order. This autonomy from Kant provides the authority of liberalism and choice that we have. Larmore then talks about the moral psychology that has to do with motivation and obligation. If we internalize this sense of moral right then it gives us the motivation to hold an obligation of doing the right act. He also talks about how this motivation can be socially learned through our experience.

I really like this idea of the modus vivendi that we have that makes it necessary for us to give priority of the right in order to keep our own conception of the good. We can not escape the fact that we live in a pluralistic society and that if we are to keep our own way of life from coming under attack then we need to all get along in a neutral way. If we did not have any neutral principles that allows us to be safe in our ways of thinking then the right would rely on power. Whatever faction of that held power would be able to impose their own conception of what is good upon everyone around them. This is would result in the formation of tribes that would not mix to become one society. A distinct example of this is the Muslim culture with the differences between the Shiet and the Suni who hold similar but still conflicting notions of the good and are unable to even interact because there is no neutral state that holds the justice of the right above their thoughts of the good.

Using the route of expressivism is a rough road to travel as well because I do not think we are capable of achieving the autonomy that is necessary to make it work. The main basis that Kant works with is the sort of depersonalizing ourselves to become an autonomous true self that is the true ideal. This is