![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
This article argues that political liberalism, of the type formulated by John Rawls and Charles Larmore and further developed in Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach, is superior to more comprehensive political views both in domestic and in global affairs. Perfectionist liberalism as advocated by John Stuart Mill and Joseph Raz attempts to erase existing religions and replace them with the religion of utility or autonomy. This is wrong, because in the ethico-religious environment of reasonable disagreement that we inhabit all comprehensive forms of political morality pose a threat to people's liberty and equality. Only thin and narrow conceptions of value like the ones suggested by Rawls, Larmore, Sen, and Nussbaum can guarantee the respect for diversity that is needed in a pluralistic world. Although Rawls famously failed to extend this idea from domestic to transnational matters, the argument of the article is that not only do the principles of political liberalism apply to global matters, but that the reasons why they apply to global affairs are even more compelling transnationally than they are domestically.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Martha C. Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, appointed in the Law School and Philosophy Department; and an Associate in the Classics Department, the Divinity School, and the Political Science Department. She is co-author of the renowned capabilities approach, and her contributions to discussions on global ethics and justice include Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge University Press, 2000), Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (Harvard University Press, 2006), Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach (Harvard University Press, 2011), and The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age (Harvard University Press, 2012).
Notes
† Portions of this article also appear in my Introduction to Capabilities, Gender, Equality (Comim and Nussbaum Citation2014, 1–15).
1. See Larmore (Citation1996), Rawls (Citation1986), and Nussbaum (Citation2000, Citation2006, Citation2012). I defend political liberalism in Nussbaum (Citation2011a, 3–45).
2. For detailed discussion of Raz's views, with references, see ‘Perfectionist Liberalism.’
3. This is clearly true for Bentham and Mill. Sidgwick is complicated, since he maintains that the conclusions of Utilitarianism coincide in large measure with those of Intuitional everyday (religious) morality; and for him Utilitarianism itself can solve the tension between egoism and altruism (the famous ‘dualism of practical reason’ only if a moral God and world order exist).
4. For references, see ‘Perfectionist Liberalism.’
5. See John Alexander's paper in the Comim/Nussbaum volume.
6. For pertinent comments, see PL, xxvi, xxxi.
7. Consider the discussions of both free speech and campaign finance.
8. PL, xlvii–xlviii: PL ‘makes no attempt to prove, or to show that such a consensus would eventually form around a reasonable conception of political justice.’
9. See PL, 159.
10. PL, 133–172.
11. PL, lxi–lxii.
12. PL, lxii.
13. PL, xxiv.
14. Thus, only 0.1% fail to name a religious affiliation.
15. See detailed discussion in Liberty of Conscience.
16. Here, note, there is an asymmetry between the domestic and the transnational: in the domestic case, political liberalism does not encourage the different groups to write a separate constitution, and overlapping consensus means accepting the constitution as interpreted. In the transnational case, different nations are encouraged to write their own constitutions, embodying but further specifying the ideas of the capabilities goal.