i n t r o d u c t i o n

§2. Four Roles of Political Philosophy

1. I see four roles that political philosophy may play as part of a society’s public political culture. These are discussed at length in §1 of the Restatement. So I will only briefly recount them here.

(a)The first is its practical role arising from divisive political conflict when its task is to focus on deeply disputed questions and to see whether, despite appearances, some underlying basis of philosophical and moral agreement can be uncovered, or differences can at least be narrowed so that social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect among citizens can still be maintained.

(b)The second role, which I call orientation, is one of reason and reflection. Political philosophy may contribute to how a people think of their political and social institutions as a whole, of themselves as citizens, and of their basic aims and purposes as a society with a history—a nation—as opposed to their aims and purposes as individuals, or as members of families and associations.

(c)A third role, stressed by Hegel in his Philosophy of Right (1821), is that of reconciliation: political philosophy may try to calm our frustration and rage against our society and its history by showing us the way in which its institutions, when properly understood, from a philosophical point of view, are rational, and developed over time as they did to attain their present, rational form. When political philosophy acts in this role, it must guard against the danger of being simply a defense of an unjust and unworthy status quo. This would make it an ideology (a false scheme of thought), in Marx’s sense.8

(d)The fourth role is that of probing the limits of practicable political possi-

8. For Marx an ideology is a false scheme of thought that sometimes helps to obscure from those within the social system how it works, making them unable to penetrate beneath the surface appearance of its institutions. In this case it buttresses an illusion, as classical political economy helped, in Marx’s view, to obscure the fact that a capitalist system is a system of exploitation. Or an ideology serves to firm up a necessary delusion: decent capitalists do not want to believe that the system is exploitative; so they believe the classical doctrine of political economy, which assures them it is a scheme of free exchanges in which all factors of production—land, capital, and labor—appropriately receive what they contribute to social output. In this case ideology buttresses a delusion. [See Marx, Lecture III in this volume, for a discussion of ideological consciousness. —Ed.]

[ 10 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Remarks on Political Philosophy

bility. In this role, we view political philosophy as realistically utopian. Our hope for the future of our society rests on the belief that the social world allows at least a decent political order, so that a reasonably just, though not perfect, democratic regime is possible. So we ask: What would a just democratic society be like under reasonably favorable but still possible historical conditions, conditions allowed by the laws and tendencies of the social world? What ideals and principles would such a society try to realize given the circumstances of justice in a democratic culture as we know them?

§3. Main Ideas of Liberalism: Its Origins and Content

1. Since a good part of these lectures will be concerned with conceptions of liberalism and four of its main historical figures and one of its greatest critics, I should say something about how I understand it. There is no settled meaning of liberalism; it has many forms and many features, and writers characterize it in different ways.

Liberalism’s three main historical origins are the following: the Reformation and the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ending with the, at first, reluctant acceptance of the principle of toleration and liberty of conscience; the gradual taming of royal power by the rising middle classes and the establishment of constitutional regimes of limited monarchy; and the winning of the working classes to democracy and majority rule.9 These developments occurred in different countries in Europe and North America at different times; yet thinking of England, it is roughly true that liberty of conscience was well on its way to being won at the end of the 17th century, constitutional government during the 18th, and democracy and majority rule with universal suffrage during the 19th. This movement is not, of course, complete. Important aspects of it have not yet been won even today, and some still seem a long way off. All existing allegedly liberal democracies are highly imperfect and fall far short of what democratic justice would seem to require.

For example, five reforms needed in the United States are indicated here: campaign finance reform to overcome the present system of money

9. This is a philosopher’s schematic version of speculative history, and to be recognized as such.

[ 11 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

i n t r o d u c t i o n

buying access to power; fair equality of educational opportunity; some form of assured health care for all; some form of guaranteed and socially useful work; and equal justice for and equality of women. These reforms would greatly mitigate if not remove the worst aspects of discrimination and racism. Others will have their list of essential reforms whose importance is also undeniable.

2. Expressed in broad terms, the content of a liberal political conception of justice has three main elements: a list of equal basic rights and liberties, a priority for these freedoms, and an assurance that all members of society have adequate all-purpose means to make use of these rights and liberties. Note that the liberties are given by a list. Later we try to make these elements more definite.

To give the general idea: the equal basic liberties include the equal political liberties—the right to vote and to run for public office, and the right of free political speech of all kinds. They include also the civic liberties— the right of free non-political speech, the right of free association and, of course, liberty of conscience. Add to these freedoms equality of opportunity, freedom of movement, the right to one’s own mind and body (integrity of the person), the right of personal property, and finally, the liberties covered by the rule of law and a right to a fair trial.

This list of the basic liberties is, of course, familiar. The difficult part lies in specifying them more exactly and in ordering them in relation to one another when they conflict. At the moment the essential thing is to stress the great significance that liberalism attaches to a certain list of liberties, rather than to liberty as such. With this in mind, the second element of the content of liberalism is that the liberties are assigned a certain priority, that is, a certain force and weight. This means, in effect, that they cannot normally be sacrificed in order to gain greater social welfare, or for the sake of perfectionist values; and this restriction is, practically speaking, absolute.

The third element of liberalism’s content is that, as indicated above, its principles assign to all members of society claims to adequate all-purpose material means to make use of their freedoms, as detailed and given priority by the preceding elements. These all-purpose means fall under what I shall call primary goods. They include, in addition to the basic liberties and equal opportunities: income and wealth, and as appropriate, claims to goods in kind, for example, to education and health care.

By saying that the content of liberal views has these three elements I

[ 12 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Remarks on Political Philosophy

mean that the content of any familiar liberal view would more or less fit this broad description. What distinguishes different liberalisms is how they specify these elements and the general arguments used to do this. There are views, often described as liberal, for example, libertarian views, that don’t exemplify the third element of assuring to citizens adequate all-purpose means to make use of their freedoms. But the fact that it does not is, among other things, what makes a view libertarian and not liberal. Libertarianism doesn’t fit the third element. Of course, this is not an argument against it, but simply a comment about its content.

§4. A Central Thesis of Liberalism

1. There are, no doubt, several candidates for the central thesis of liber- alism—the securing of the basic liberties is certainly one of them—and writers will differ on this. One central element is certainly the following:

A legitimate regime is such that its political and social institutions are justifiable to all citizens—to each and every one—by addressing their reason, theoretical and practical. Again: a justification of the institutions of the social world must be, in principle, available to everyone, and so justifiable to all who live under them. The legitimacy of a liberal regime depends on such a justification.10

While political liberalism (of which justice as fairness11 is an example) does not reject or question the importance of religion and tradition, it insists that political requirements and obligations imposed by law must answer to citizens’ reason and judgment.

This requirement of a justification to each citizen’s reason connects with the tradition of the social contract and the idea that a legitimate political order rests on unanimous consent. The aim of a contractual justification is to show that each member of society has a sufficient reason to agree to that order, to acknowledge it, on the condition that other citizens acknowl-

10.For a discussion of this matter, see Jeremy Waldron’s instructive essay, “The Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism,” Philosophical Quarterly, April 1987, pp. 128, 135, 146, 149.

11.Justice as fairness is the name I have given to the political conception of justice developed in A Theory of Justice and in Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.

[ 13 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

i n t r o d u c t i o n

edge it as well. This yields unanimous consent. The reasons invoked must be reasons from the point of view of each reasonable and rational person.

“Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his Natural Liberty and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a Community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of it.” Locke: Second Treatise on Government, ¶95.

In this passage from Locke it seems that consent is something citizens actually do at some point; or at any rate this interpretation is not excluded. In Kant we get a different idea. He says that we cannot assume the original contract arises from an actual coalition of all private individuals existing, for this cannot possibly be so.

[The original contract] is in fact merely an idea of reason, which none the less has undoubted practical reality; for it can oblige the legislator to frame his laws in such a way that they could have been produced by the united will of the whole nation. . . . This is the test of rightfulness of every public law. For if the law is such that a whole people could not possibly agree to it (for example, if it stated that a certain class of subjects must be the privileged ruling class), it is unjust; but if it is at least possible that a people could agree to it, it is our duty to consider the law as just, even if the people is at present in such a position or attitude of mind that it would probably refuse to consent to it were it consulted. Kant, Theory and Practice (1793): Ak:VIII:297 (Reiss, 79).12

2. Now I note some distinctions that enable us to understand the meaning of different social contract views and to separate them from one another.

First, the distinction between actual and non-historical agreements: The former is found, it seems, in Locke (we shall discuss whether this is so when we come to Locke). The latter is found in Kant, who has in mind an agree-

12. Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, ed. H. S. Reiss and H. B. Nesbit (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 79.

[ 14 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Remarks on Political Philosophy

ment that could arise only from a coalition of all wills; but since historical conditions never allow for this, the original contract is non-historical.

Second, the distinction as to how the content is determined: whether by the terms of an actual contract, or by analysis (that is, by figuring out from the situation of those making the contract what they could, or would agree to), or by some combination of the two ways. In part, Kant calls the original contract an idea of reason because it is only by reason—both theoretical and practical—that we can figure out what it is possible for people to agree to. In this case the contract is hypothetical.

A third distinction is whether the content of the social contract concerns what people could do—or could not possibly do—or what they would do. These are very different: often it is much harder to work out the content of a hypothetical contract saying what people would do rather than what they could do, or could not possibly do. Thus, when Locke is attacking Charles II, he is mainly interested in showing that in setting up a form of government, the people could not possibly have agreed to royal absolutism. So the King’s behaving as a sovereign with such powers makes his conduct illegitimate. Locke need not show what the people would have agreed to, other than inferring what they would not do from what they could not possibly do. (Here he relies on: if we could not possibly do X, we would not do X.)13

A fourth distinction is whether the content of the social contract is seen as specifying when a form of government is legitimate, or whether that content is seen as determining the (political) obligations that citizens have to their government. The idea of the social contract can serve two distinct purposes: either as yielding a conception of political legitimacy, or as giving an account of citizens’ political obligations. Of course, a social contract doctrine may do both; but the distinction between the two is significant: for one thing, the idea of the social contract works differently in the two cases, and can be quite satisfactory in one case but not the other.14 I think Hume’s critique of the social contract view is effective for Locke’s account of political obligation,15 but it doesn’t touch Locke’s account of legitimacy, or so I believe.

13.Thus: could not do X implies would not do X; but, could do X does not imply would do X.

14.On this point, see Waldron, “Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism,” pp. 136–140.

15.See Hume’s Of the Original Contract (1752).

[ 15 ]

Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College