Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Liberalism, Part III
Message-ID: <12428@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16-Mar-86 05:52:52 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12428
Posted: Sun Mar 16 05:52:52 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Mar-86 22:30:35 EST
References: <363@gargoyle.UUCP> <608@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 56

In article <608@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>>Liberalism, says Dworkin, is based on the belief that government must
>>treat all its citizens with equal concern and respect:  as free,
>>independent, and with equal dignity -- a belief shared by American
>>(US) conservatives.  But the liberal also believes that government
>>must be neutral on "the question of the good life," and denies that
>>government must operate on a theory of what human beings ought to be:
>
>Unfortunately, this is impossible.  You cannot both promote the belief
>that a government must treat all its citizens with equal concern and respect
>and be neutral on the question of what human beings ought to be.  As a bare
>minimum you must have a theory which says ``government officials ought
>to treat all its citizens with equal concern and respect''.

   No, "government" is not the same as "government officials" (at least,
not always, and certainly not in theory).  In practice, this means that
those who become government officials are those who are willing to enforce
the chosen principles of government.  Since no one is forced to be a
government official, this is not a problem.

>However, there is a deeper problem in Dworkin's conception of conservatism.
>Conservatives do not believe that a government should treat all its
>citizens with *equal* respect -- just with *at a bare minimum*, a
>minimum amount of respect.  Thus conservatives and liberals will both
>agree that all its citizens deserve respect, but conservatives claim
>that it is possible to get more respect.  Respect can be earned.
>While Dworkin claims that liberals want to treat all citizens with equal
>respect, I have actually neer met one who demonstrates this belief.

   Nobody claims that liberals treat all citizens with equal respect.
Individuals of course are free to treat others with as much or as little
respect as they desire.  But the *government* must treat people with
equal respect (equal protection under the laws).

>Like everyone else, liberals have heroes, and accord them respect -- so
>people like Mother Theresa, and Martin Luther King are accorded more
>respect than the average.

   But you would not want the government to accord them more respect,
or to treat them differently under the laws.  This is the point.

>Finally, what is Dworkin's concept of the function of the judicial branch
>of government?  Surely he believes that it is part of government.  But
>it most clearly is *not* neutral on the question of what human beings 
>ought to be.  (We can get into a semantic quibble here over whether
>Dworkin thinks the function of courts is only to determine what human
>beings ought not to be.  Buth when you covert that into ``everything not
>forbidden is good'' you still have made a statement about what is good.)

   There is also a semantic point about "what human beings are" vs.
"what human beings do."  But this is not truly relevant either.
   The fact is that here you have a good point.  Any sort of law is,
by definition, not neutral on what human beings ought to be.  Anybody
out there want to speak in defense of Dworkin's statement?

   -- David desJardins