Liberals: Alas, the Time Has Come to Throw John Rawls Under the Bus

We should rather say that men should be able to choose What attributes they take. To be traditionally masculine, traditionally feminine or a combination, so long, of course, because we do not hurt others. This later reserve is known as the principle of freedom. During a first pass, it may not seem so distinct from the idea of ​​liberal neutrality, I passed this essay to deplore, but it is justification is very different. The argument of John Stuart Mill (the philosopher credited with his formulation) is rooted in what is good for people:

Whoever leaves the world, or his own part, chooses his plan of life for him, needs no other faculty than imitation similar to a monkey. Whoever chooses his plan for himself, uses all his faculties. He must use the observation to see, the reasoning and the judgment to be expected, the activity to bring together material for the decision, the discrimination to decide and when he decided, of firmness and self -control to maintain his deliberate decision. And these qualities he needs and exercises exactly in proportion as part of his conduct which he determines according to his own judgment and feelings is a great. It is possible that he is guided on a good path, and that he is not out of danger, without any of these things. But what will be its comparative value as a human being? This is really an importance, not only what men do, but also what men do they do.

So, to take the case of masculinity, we want men to choose their lives, not because liberalism is neutral on this subject, but precisely Because it’s not: Because we think that men having freedom are good for them. That we are doing a happier life when we can train our own characters, choose our own hobbies and interests, rather than being forced in a small narrow box. That we will be more precious for ourselves, and therefore more precious for others. Being self-formulated will make us better sons, husbands and fathers.

The difference is subtle but important: both neutral liberalism and the genre that I plead to agree that we should have the freedom of the way we approach gender roles, but they do not agree on why. It is a question of how to make the argument. I think we, as a liberals, can sometimes think too much about our ultimate justifications. “Because it’s good for people” is a perfectly sensible starting point.