Abstract

This dissertation provides an examination and critique of the leading strategies for defending liberalism: the classical theories of natural right and consequentialist liberalism, and contemporary versions such as political and ethical liberalism. ;Unable to explain why we should honor liberal rights and freedoms, consequentialist defenses fail. Seeking a unified explanation of all our moral norms, including rights, consequentialists appeal to a single factor, the goodness of consequences. But unification cannot be artificially imposed. Two unrelated scientific laws cannot be unified by simply conjoining them. Nor can introducing a single term to mask the conjunction make unification less artificial. Consequentialism does just that. It introduces the notion of "producing the best consequences" in order to unify diverse moral norms, but that notion masks a conjunction of properties which require separate treatment. ;Ethical liberalism does not even offer a genuine alternative to its predecessor, political liberalism. Since both views assert that their theories are best justified, or ought to be followed, it does not matter whether they characterize their principles as "true" or "reasonable" . Similarly, closer inspection reveals that, despite its claims to the contrary, ethical liberalism ultimately grounds its principles in the consensus of a culture, not the truth of certain values, just as political liberalism does. ;Although natural right liberalism claims, and political liberalism denies, that liberalism must apply to all societies at all times, political liberalism is committed to that anyway. Political liberalism applies even to societies which lack liberal traditions. Alternative theories would be unstable there--unable to generate a willingness to comply with their requirements provided others reciprocate. ;So some factor other than their range of application must distinguish the two remaining strategies. Like political liberalism, natural right liberalism can generate a willingness to comply with its requirements provided others reciprocate--both views have almost identical requirements. Both are stable. But political liberalism, unlike natural right liberalism, can remain publicly affirmed in the meantime. Since both hold that public affirmation is necessary for their justification, this disqualifies natural right liberalism. ;Political liberalism is the best strategy for defending liberalism.