Lockes view in the Two Treatises not only allows for but embraces interference with individuals on recognizably perfectionist grounds. It is plainly a form of perfectionism. Yet it is also an early paradigm of deontological liberalism for Locke sharply emphasizes the importance of moral duties to respect the basic rights of the sovereign individual. It is tempting to conclude that he is confusedly appealing to two opposed forms of moral and political theory, indeed to what we have come to see as two opposed forms of moral reasoning, viz. consequentialism on the one hand and deontology on the other. This temptation should be resisted. Perfectionism and deontology are not necessarily at odds with one another; some perfectionisms may coherently and productively also be deontological liberalisms. Lockes is one such view.
Respecting the constraints associated with justice through the exercise of practical wisdom may be held to be a constitutive element in the good life. Such a view is coherent and appealing insofar as it makes intelligible the relation of justice to flourishing without inviting the worries about tyrannizing that plague consequentialist forms of moral theorizing. This is theoretically unambitious as it rules out robustly explaining the nature of moral rectitude by appeal to the idea of maximizing the good. Yet it is not trivializing.
Lockes liberalism fundamentally calls for every human being to be brought into full practical reason and to be accorded a minimally decent scope for exercising that capacity in various productive ways in society with others.
The dissertation culminates in a demonstration that Locke was correct to hold the kind of perfectionist liberal view that he did, rather than the standard libertarian view often still attributed to him. Standard libertarianism is especially vulnerable to a kind of collective self-defeat, for while perfectly respecting the relevant constraints of libertarian justice, the members of libertarian society may undermine the realization of one of their characteristic basic values. Such degeneration would be no accident; it is brought about through intentional actions fully morally legitimate on that conception. Locke was hence correct to defend his actual view rather than this alternative.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PITT/oai:PITTETD:etd-12132008-140115 |
| Date | 29 January 2009 |
| Creators | Riley, Evan |
| Contributors | Michael Goodhart, Associate Professor, Political Science, Stephen Engstrom, Professor, Philosophy, Michael Thompson, Professor, Philosophy, Kieran Setiya, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Karin Boxer, Assistant Professor, Philosophy |
| Publisher | University of Pittsburgh |
| Source Sets | University of Pittsburgh |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-12132008-140115/ |
| Rights | restricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to University of Pittsburgh or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds