To criticize popular taste is to invite the charge of élitisme, and to defend distinctions of value – between the virtuous and the vicious, the beautiful and the ugly, the sacred and the profane, the true and the false – is to offend against the only value-judgement that is widely accepted, the judgement that judgements are wrong.
Roger Scruton, Philosophy: Principles and Problems (Continuum, 1996. p. 12)
To read the essay by Professor Christian Nadeau, one begins to wonder if the "liberals" in the broadest sense, philosophically, the term would not be more true conservatives. Moreover, the oxymoron of " conservative revolution" in the subtitle of the book is puzzling. It should be noted at the outset the political camps in dispute. In political philosophy, "liberals" and "conservative" means two members of one great family, political liberalism, which does not share the same views on the role of the state in social life and its role. As said Nadeau, while the Liberals want a significant state intervention, the Conservatives want to " limited to what the state control " (p. 14).
The previous definition is sketchy or incomplete, because conservatism bears his name because of his opposition to automatically give any form of change, reform, and more to any form revolution in political institutions.
According to Nadeau's analysis of under the Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper of Canada, the Conservatives would, instead, undermining " slowly but surely ... the country's institutions to ensure the greatest flexibility in the field of citizenship and freedom security, freedom of conscience and social justice ... " (p. 16). Hence the impression that, deep down, the true conservatives, the Liberals, for whom the author does not hesitate to take up the cause. So, according to the author, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper would actually the "reformist " of Canadian political institutions. And the author of his shirt: "We are outraged because we see their actions reflected a company organized and very well against justice and democracy as we have designed so far." (p. 21)
Nadeau pulls no punches because, according to his analysis, the Conservative party would be nothing less than a new Leviathan: " Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have a Hobbesian conception of politics" (p. 39). The author establishes his thesis in accumulating a number of policy actions disturbing and shocking the Harper government. In fact, the Conservative government is like a steamroller, rolling Canadian democracy. On this point, I share the views of the author. It should however be treated with caution to the fatal fallacy, because to say that the election of the Conservative party leads straight to the grim prospect of a Big Brother State seems greatly overstated.
I also welcome the aim of the book which is an exercise in applied political philosophy (p. 10). It is important that philosophers are heard in the affairs of the city. Nadeau's essay remains, in this regard, a model of its kind. We strongly expect further tests by the author on topical issues.
That said, I do not share the views of any "liberal" Christian Nadeau. Long ago, I mistakenly thought I was a good liberal, a supporter of Rawls. Those who have the courage to read my blog know that I stand now the decidedly anti-liberal, political liberalism that Rawls is my enemy. Perhaps the title of "conservatism" it suits me. I do not know. In any case, if conservatism is a form of liberalism "right", I am not a conservative because I reject liberalism point line, it is "right" or "left" or even " center-right or-left ". What is certain is that I claim the political thought of Aristotle that can be called "conservatism." The American philosopher of politics, Michael J. Sandel, in his latest book Justice. What's the Right Thing to Do? (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009) - which I have the report here - seems to chart the way forward. Finally, I mention that in Roger Scruton, A Political Philosophy . Arguments for Conservatism (Continuum, 2007), is in the same direction. I am inclined to define conservatism by reversing the formula that Rawls has given the essence of liberalism: the priority of the right on the property. If being "conservative" is to adhere to the principle that the property has priority over the right , so I am.
What anathema to Nadeau highest point is that with the Canadian Conservatives "There then more room for pluralism: the differences of opinion are discouraged by the very people who should protect them." (p. 23). Indeed, for a liberal principles pluralism and neutrality regarding moral opinions are sacrosanct. Also, a liberal state, it is ruled by liberals or conservatives, or even the NDP, must remain neutral on questions of moral nature. Nadeau's indignation is that government intervention Harper is " based largely on a moral or a conception of the good life ... " (p. 28). This is the beating heart behind all the Nadeau test for here, conservatism at Harper picnic right in the heart of liberalism.
The first sentences of Against Harper evoke indignation that is the source of the test:
The first sentences of Against Harper evoke indignation that is the source of the test:
Like many people living in Canada, I am ashamed of this government. I am ashamed and I am appalled by all actions that were committed in our name and will continue to be. I've never been patriotic, but until further notice I have a Canadian passport and I pay my taxes to the Canadian state. (p. 9)
Despite the outrage, what you notice in this opening, the character "formal" detached, disengaged, so to speak, with respect to the country. The liberal, indeed, defines its identity by its adherence to democratic political institutions, end of story. The patriotic and other antics of the genre do not interest little. How could it be otherwise, since these are "values" regarding the good life, indeed it does absolutely not the author as citizen Liberal . is the ego politics "who speaks, the only reality that is of importance in the eyes of a liberal citizen. Also, the author does not understand how you might want to mix politics and morality, as anxious conservatives. This is outrageous! he exclaims loudly.
At the hearing, however, he who calls for neutrality, we can not help think it is by no means neutral. That is why the accusation of bias moral rightful like a boomerang in his face, and he is astonished amazement.
Regarding the famous liberal neutrality, I would like to conclude by showing that it is a lure with two examples. (For other examples, I refer the reader to the work of Michael Sandel cited.)
Take the case of marriage of same sex. You can not judge the homosexual marriage without determining what the goal or purpose of marriage. The debate on marriage gay is fundamentally a moral debate over whether unions gay and lesbians deserve the same recognition as heterosexual marriage state. The moral question is whether gay marriage deserves honorary recognition that the state confers to heterosexual marriage.
The Liberals, of course, circumvent the issue arguing that it is not to rule on the meaning or purpose of marriage, but to judge whether the rights of the people involved were injured. By banning marriage between same sex, the state appears to discriminate against some of its citizens. Their rights to equality before the law and the freedom of choice seem indeed violated. In short, people should have the right to marry whomever they want.
On reflection, however, this reasoning is not valid. The premise that saying people should exercise their autonomy and free choice , we can not conclude satisfactorily they should marry whom they want . In this account, indeed, we might as well admit that people can marry several spouses or even members of their own family or with animals or plants or minerals, to the extent that it is only to exercise their free choice.
The moral question remains full: gay marriage was legitimate, this type of union he deserves the recognition of the state? To break this impasse, the Liberal invokes the idea that marriage is an institution that changes with the times and places. They therefore call on moral relativism . No wonder the Conservatives accuse the Liberals of "relativism." The Liberals argue that marriage may also be considered loyalty as a commitment between two partners - gay or straight, whatever. Now, let us note well, this type of reasoning, the liberal takes the bottom position on the purpose or purposes of marriage, that is to say, he leaves his apparent neutrality to affirm the moral legitimacy of marriage homosexual.
Finally, consider the new course of Ethics and Religious Culture (RCT). This course originally Proulx Report on the place of religion in school. Again, we ask that public education must respect human rights, including equal fundamental citizens to freedom of conscience and religion. The conclusion of the said report runs, it seems, source: the State must refrain from taking a position for or against one or the other religions should not promote the teaching of any one denomination.
Again, let us note, we face a moral question that bypasses yet liberal when he pulled on the famous neutrality of the state. But he can not escape the moral question regarding the purpose of education religious service. By proposing that the school does not teach of religious beliefs but only religious knowledge without commitment or the teacher or students, the liberal state leaves its apparent neutrality laying in the end the purpose of this type of education. The austere and rigorous form of the Report suggests that Proulx is an objective decision based on established rules of art, and that no moral position is adopted. All is bathed in neutral most misleading. Therefore, on behalf of the absolute equality before the law, since September 2008, all young Quebecers must take the RCT.
What is the moral position taken by the Proulx report? - That the purpose of religious education must respect the right to freedom of belief and conscience of young people. In sum, another goal of religious education, other than education in the faith is imposed on the basis of the right to freedom of conscience and belief. So, education in faith is no longer desirable . Here we have a moral! Farewell neutrality!
should now to include the type of liberal thinking among the list of fallacies. I propose the term of "liberal fallacy" to describe this kind of fallacious reasoning.
As Voltaire liked to say, in the famous words attributed to him: I do not believe a word of what you say but I will do everything in my power so that you can express . It is the liberal creed. Strictly speaking, the Liberal vowed to respect the freedom of individual conscience, not their beliefs. It does not respect religion, only choice of the person in matters of religion. Indeed, for the liberal, the ability to choose defines the human person. That is why the Liberal think the truth value of belief the believer must be enclosed in parentheses. Instead, the truth of his belief is central to the believer, because without it, the belief loses interest. is like saying I believe in the sovereignty of Quebec, but Quebec will never sovereign, or even I believe in resurrection after death, but it is a belief among many other equally (or little) as valid as each other . As the philosophers say Analytical believe that p implies I think p is true. Strangled by order of neutrality, the liberal truth that obscures elementary logic.
Basically, the infamous need to decry it as much as the conservative Liberal.
should now to include the type of liberal thinking among the list of fallacies. I propose the term of "liberal fallacy" to describe this kind of fallacious reasoning.
As Voltaire liked to say, in the famous words attributed to him: I do not believe a word of what you say but I will do everything in my power so that you can express . It is the liberal creed. Strictly speaking, the Liberal vowed to respect the freedom of individual conscience, not their beliefs. It does not respect religion, only choice of the person in matters of religion. Indeed, for the liberal, the ability to choose defines the human person. That is why the Liberal think the truth value of belief the believer must be enclosed in parentheses. Instead, the truth of his belief is central to the believer, because without it, the belief loses interest. is like saying I believe in the sovereignty of Quebec, but Quebec will never sovereign, or even I believe in resurrection after death, but it is a belief among many other equally (or little) as valid as each other . As the philosophers say Analytical believe that p implies I think p is true. Strangled by order of neutrality, the liberal truth that obscures elementary logic.
Basically, the infamous need to decry it as much as the conservative Liberal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment