Liberalism and Eudaimonia

Liberalism and the Absence of Purpose by Thomas Storck

Is freedom really the ultimate good of liberals? Or is it necessary for an end? I think liberals would concede that freedom is ordered to individual happiness; this is combined with an agnosticism about what happiness entails, and for them, it is not the function of the state to bring it about, nor to "impose" one view on all. Proponents of the New Natural Law Theory recognize a social good, or the good of friendship/associations/community. Liberals probably recognize friendship as a good, but do they understand the civic community to be an instantiation of friendship on a wide scale? Most Uhmericans cannot, because the form of community is absent - what holds is an aggregate of isolate individuals who associate with one another from time to time.

Is it proper to point to Jefferson's modification of Locke in the Declaration of Independence as the guiding ideology of the United States, as Mr. Storck does?

"The United States is firmly committed to the liberal theory. Governments derive “their just Powers from the consent of the Governed” and the purpose of government is simply to “secure” the rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Indeed, it would seem to follow from the argument in the Declaration of Independence that if any people did not think a government was necessary in order to safeguard those rights, then it would be perfectly just for it to have no government whatsoever. This seems to fit in very well with the logic of those libertarians who maintain that in actual fact government is not needed to procure the goods usually associated with it."

I am skeptical of the use of the Declaration of Independence as a proof text and unsure of the claim that the United States is firmly committed to the liberal theory. On the part of the elites? Maybe. On the part of average people? When it comes to justifying their moral stances - but the living arrangements in which they find themselves? It's "normal." Liberalism probably has become more and more the dominant ideology, but I do not think that people consciously adhere to it as the theory behind their own code of life. Do they support liberalism because it justifies and enables their own choices in life, and protects that "freedom"? I doubt we can make such a generalization covering all of the United States, though it may be more applicable to those living in a megapolis than older Americans living in small towns.

I am reminded of Jerry Salyer's Freedom is Not the Good and his comment on the Catholic confessional community.

If we were more willing to share land, would we have as much a problem with groups separating or secession? Is Christianity more "successful" in intact communities or in mass urban areas, where political community is no longer possible? What of the difficulty of converting the American aborigines (the story of the French Jesuits and the North American Martyrs)? It may be attributable to ingrained vice, but what about the factor of social cohesion and a strong group identity? And what of the tribes in South America - were the Jesuit reductions, and the American missions in general, a necessary tool of missionary effort and evangelization? How many hunter-gatherer groups have converted and yet remained hunter-gatherers?

The early Christian kingdoms (Armenia, Georgia) might be a sort of counter-example. I don't think conversions happened by force in those areas, unlike what happened with some of the Germanic tribes.

Humans are inclined to live with others, but that does not mean that there is a social good (or, good of community) that can be abstracted from how it is lived out (especially with respect to "higher" goods, like friendship with God). Those who lived together and enjoy debauching themselves - we would not say that this was a healthy community or "good friendship" even though they were enjoying each other's company and pursuing the same pleasures. If the pursuit of hedonism is a part of their group identity, how can they not feel estranged from those who do not participate, or see them as outsiders?

That hedonism may not be "required" by law but it is part of the culture that makes the community what it is, nonetheless.