Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
In/Justice of Negative Liberty and State Neutralism - Coggle Diagram
In/Justice of Negative Liberty and State Neutralism
What is justice? What does that look like in societies?
If it is just/unjust what does the alternative theory look like? Is that a just world? Is it more just? What could potentially go wrong/right with negative liberty +
Justice- What is right, what is fair.
Is it fair, is it right for society to be ruled by greed and envy, and for people to be unable to sustain interpersonal relationships, etc
No, of course it is not. That describes a broken world. That describes an empty, heartless people.
It is not good to leave these people to their fickle desires and motivations. There has to be something to govern them. But how can broken people govern broken people? What makes them so different, so much better than the society that is broken? If the alternative is perfectionism where society is pruned to behave a certain way, what gives them the authority or the ABILITY to tell me how to live a good life?
Perfectionism relies on the idea that the people running the government know best. That they are superior to us . Not just in knowledge superiority, but superiority of judgement and superiority to do good and resist evil. And perhaps most importantly, superiority to KNOW what is good and evil. What exactly is good? Is it the short term outcome? Is it the long term outcome? How would they know?
Assume the following is demonstrably true: Citizens in a society that embraces negative
liberty and state neutralism tend to be generally unhappy and unremarkable: they frequently
succumb to vices like greed and envy, they typically devote their lives to vapid pursuits, they
can’t sustain healthy interpersonal relationships, and they are motivated mainly by the desire to
get richer than their neighbors. Does this truth alone enable us to draw any philosophical
conclusions about the justice of such societies?
So I have to define negative liberty and define state neutralism first. We (me,the writer and the audience) have to understand what we're analyzing.
Negative liberty: Freedom exists in the absence of something external (interference/obstruction/constraint). Freedom is quantitative (KS: number of options you have). Number of things you can do without anyone getting in your face about it. In this view, all laws prevent freedom.
Neutralism: The state's purpose is to maintain social order so that individulas can pursue their own conception of freedom. So state's job is to keep things fair.
Perfectionism: The human good lies in cultivating or developing some specified capacities or functions.
Political: the state's purpose is to cultivate in individuals those capacities or functions.
Positive Liberty: Freedom consists in the presence of something external. (Interference/obstruction/constraint) Freedom is qualitative . Behavior is a reflection of who you are. Not constricted by addiction or obsessions.
does this truth "ALONE" enable us to draw any philosophical conclusions about the justice...?
This, to me, is a question of whether the outcome of this philosophical theory is enough to make a conclusion
Does outcome justify a theory? If outcomes justify a theory/position, then a negative outcome can refute/disprove a theory.
It is a common story for sports stars to recount how their fathers were incredibly harsh on them in their journey to become pro athletes. Their fathers wouldn't talk to them if they played bad in a game, their father would hurl insults at the poor kid when he messed up, etc
This helped the kid grow a formidable mentality and block outside noise. It formed the kid into a formidable athlete with an agression and assertiveness that all pro athletes must have. The kid may not have felt love from his dad but he earns a million dollars every week. He's in a far better position than he could ever imagine. Does the glorious outcome justify the abusive parenting? Surely not. Because verbally abusing your child is objectively wrong. So outcomes alone are not enough to justify or disprove a theory.
An argument for perfectionism is that when humans are left to their own wants and desires, they hurt each other and chaos ensues. But who is running the government, then? Is it not those same humans? A rebuttal may be that the government will have laws that they must abide by. Who is making those laws? And what makes them correct or just? Is it not the same broken humans?
The world is broken. Humans are broken. The bad things listed in the questions are a result of human brokenness. Brokenness that will always be there.
I feel that the very nature of perfectionism is unjust because it implies that governors are morally superior. It promotes inequality. That does not seem fair to me
But we cannot let people run loose. It is idealistic to say that we are all equal. Sure, our value is equal. No one is greater than the other. But some are better than others at seeing things .
Would it be just for people to know that using heroine will put you on a terrible path, and yet, still give you the chance to use it? This is assuming that I am myopic and that I am just chasing short highs and the next one. If the gov is able to see the long term, and they still let me and thousands of others suffer in the streets and do heinous crimes because we're heroine addicts, is the government just because it is giving me the freedom to do so? I promise you heroine addicts and their victims wish they never had the freedom to do so.
I think it will be good to talk about how Socrates' sees the government in 'Crito'. He sees the government as a parent. A good parent will never willingly let their child have access to those things that will harm them.
I like that, but comparing gov to parents implies an intimate love that government certainly do not have for its citizens. So is the government more of a landlord, then?
A government parent means that they are invested in the details of your life. They likely will have a say on who you date or sleep with. They have final say on what you eat. So the US gov could say, "our food right now is so unhealthy and ban all fast food places or restrict fast food eating to eating only on weekends. That's a terrible situation
A government landlord will make sure that you do not disturb other renters. So they will make sure that disturbing noises, smells, etc are taken care of. There will be rules to uphold that fairness, but you are left to your own desires and wants - harmful or not- when you are in your house.
Could you imagine being parented your whole life? Could you imagine being laissez-faire your whole life? Those are both terrible, injust scenarios. The upbringing and parenting should be done by your actual parents. Love this, don't practice this. And by the time one is 18 or is able to garner enough funds to move, he can form his own philosophy to live by. He can at least escape. He is not bonded to the chains of total freedom, when he is an adult. Because the landlord presides over him to make sure that none of his neighbors are disturbed by him.
So, a good mix of positive-freedom and neutralism is my conclusion for the most close we get to justice.