The Good Life: Illiberal Progressivism vs. Classical Liberalism

Eudaimonia = Happiness

As we continue our series on the contrasting worldviews of Illiberal Progressives and Classical Liberals, we now come to the matter of human flourishing/rights and what it means to live "the good life." Or even more simply - how to be happy.

Our American heritage is not silent on the matter and speaks directly to it in the famous Declaration of Independence, which states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now it turns out that when Thomas Jefferson penned those words he was not waxing poetic in some free-wheeling way. He was not writing wistful sentiments for Hallmark cards. In fact, he was succinctly echoing the best of the Western philosophical wisdom tradition. Let's take a brief look under the hood of Jefferson's thought world:

1. Transcendent Origins: Our human existence and individual rights flow from a common Creator, not government - not a Monarch - not a social construct. Consequently government's role is to recognize and defend human rights, but not to grant them. Human life is divinely designed to function on transcendent principles that exist above and beyond mere biology.

   
   

2. Life: Humans are not private property. Our basic right to live is not tied to the discretion of any person, state, or other collective entity. Therefore, there is no legitimate sacrifice of some lives for "the needs of the many over the good of the few" because every individual has a fundamental right to their own life. Humans are not expendable pawns at the discretion of others.

   
   

3. Liberty: Humans are not designed to live under raw coercion. As our Bill of Rights elaborates, humans are made to freely think, believe, and speak without the punitive constraints of an exterior force. Further, we are also free to forcefully and lethally defend these particular liberties if necessary. Personal liberty entails the ability to take risks and to bear the responsibility of our choices.

   
   

4. Happiness: Did Jefferson use "happiness" to mean raw pleasure-seeking? Not exactly. Although he occasionally referred to himself as an Epicurean, Jefferson was well-acquainted with John Locke's, "Two Treatises of Government," that clearly articulated our natural rights as, "Life, Liberty, and Property." Jefferson changed the final word, "Property," to "Happiness" to be more expansive in scope. But in what way? I believe his deliberate borrowing of Locke's verbiage was a trail-head to the great Western tradition on the subject of the good life - or what the Greeks called, "eudaimonia." Similar to the Hebrew word, "shalom," it meant to have an interior and enduring sense of wholeness and well-being.

Pursuing Eudaimonia

Many people are under the mistaken impression that the ancient Greeks were mostly concerned with constructing logical syllogisms, doing geometry, and founding democracy, while cultures in the East were pursuing personal enlightenment. This is a radical misunderstanding. If there is one thing the Greeks were trying to figure out, it was how to be enlightened and happy as individuals and a society.

You may remember the ancient Greek school of Hedonism from Philosophy 101. It pursued the life strategy of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. On the surface, that sounds like an attractive approach, but other Greek schools of thought sensed a problem that we now refer to as the Hedonistic Paradox: If you consistently achieve pleasure, you get numb to it and bored by it. And if you don't achieve pleasure, you are perpetually frustrated that you are not getting it. Hedonism turns out to be a bankrupt philosophy of happiness.

Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders understood this and were generally more influenced by elements of the Greek Epicureans and Stoics who emphasized happiness as a durable internal state of tranquility. This state of being that Aristotle referred to as "eudaimonia," didn't primarily come through a Buddhist-like detachment from reality, but from living in radical alignment with reality.

This alignment with reality required a development of personal character that interacted well with the world and other humans. Becoming a happy person was not merely about accumulating lots of stuff or always being avoidant to pain. It was about becoming the best version of yourself in a world beyond the scope of your individual control. But this best version of self had a universal shape called "arete" - or what we call, "virtue." The best synthesis of the Greek philosophical tradition understood that the key to happiness was virtuous alignment with the world as it truly is.

The Classic Cardinal Virtues

The personal character virtues the Stoics carried forward from Plato were:

• Prudence: using reason and wisdom to rightly interact with the world as it exists

• Justice: behaving with fairness and moral integrity towards others

• Courage: the strength and willingness to pursue wisdom and justice despite fear, opposition, and temptation

• Temperance: self-governance and ability to be disciplined and moderate/regulated

As the Western philosophical tradition continued to mature, the Christian church added three other theological virtues from St. Paul (1 Corinthians 13:13):

• Faith: a belief in a benevolent Creator (and Redeemer)

• Hope: a forward-looking perspective rooted in redemption

• Charity (Love): self-giving love that looks beyond personal interests

With this historical background in mind, we must understand that the pursuit of happiness Jefferson referred to was not put forth in an intellectual or cultural vacuum. It was not a phrase devoid of context or meaning. In fact, it was drenched in the long Western tradition that tied human flourishing to the free pursuit of universal character virtues.

But what about John Locke's final principle of private property ownership? Was that in view for Jefferson's pursuit of happiness?

The Classic Liberal View of Work

The answer is a qualified yes. The principle was not so much about maximizing the personal accumulation of resources, but rather, the ability to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Human flourishing is not predicated on mere subsistence living. We are transformative beings who mimic the Creator in our working endeavors. And as such, we should have the freedom to pursue our particular callings ("vocation" comes from the Latin word, "vocare," which means, "to call") and receive the rewards of our work.

Our work is a extension-product of our bodies in time and space and does not wholly belong to someone else. We may work on behalf of others and for the provision of others (supply side economics), but our labors, like our bodies, are not the exclusive property of a king, a socialist state, or some other master. The process and fruits of our vocational productivities are ours to enjoy.

Private property rights were certainly affirmed by Jefferson, the Founders, and the broader western philosophical tradition. Without the ability to own money, goods, or land, humans are largely robbed of the incentive to be productive. Jefferson's use of the word, "happiness," was not meant to exclude John Locke's principle of, "Property," but to expand upon it.

Whether one agrees with the Classic Liberal view of human flourishing or not is not the question we are tackling. We are simply observing that our common American heritage - our Classical Liberal heritage is not silent when it comes to the trajectory of the good life. Quite the contrary, the government our Founders designed was meant to aim at a particular understanding of what it meant for humans to seek happiness. Happiness was about the freedom to pursue universal virtues and personal fruitfulness.

You Can't Handle the Truth

Illiberal Progressives will be quick to affirm the Jeffersonian phrase about the pursuit of happiness, but it means something very different to them. Their worldview perceives humanity as a highly evolved biological species in a materialist universe devoid of absolute meaning. Therefore, the pursuit of happiness and meaning is entirely self-determined. The principles people choose to live by are flexible individual and social constructs.

Think about it. If there are no transcendent truths or principles that govern human life, then everyone can and must find their own meaning and way towards happiness. The freedom to pursue happiness via unique self-expression becomes the highest virtue. Any system or ideology that stands in the way of that is seen as fascist.

When someone defends their belief by saying it is, "my truth," they are signaling their commitment to the postmodern Illiberal Progressive worldview. As Francis Schaeffer liked to point out - they do not recognize Truth with a capital "T." For them, there is only lower case "truth" as discerned by each individual or social-cultural group. For them, the pursuit of happiness is not along any prescribed lines. Quite the contrary, it is for each person to decide for themselves. Their understanding of personal liberty is rooted in self-determination, not in any external constructs about pursuing virtue.

The Principle of Non-Interference

The conscious commitment of Illiberal Progressivism is to disconnect from the logic of divine or transcendent absolutes - especially as it relates to civil-political life. In their worldview, God-based logic is a backwards way of magical thinking. If we want to live in reality, we have to resist and even deny the impulse to make faith claims.

So what happens if we remove the underlying logic of a divine Creator because we want to pursue secular humanism devoid of religiosity? Well, some of the first things to go are transcendent and absolute civil rights. Think about it. If civil rights are not God-given, then they are either pliable social conventions contingent upon culture, subjective internal intuitions, or some combination of the two. But no civil rights principles are absolute in any enduring objective way.

To avoid total social devolution into a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest situation where the most powerful people rule the weak, Illiberal Progressives have constructed their own absolute of sorts. Namely, the principle of non-interference.

The concept of non-interference is that people should be empowered to create their own meaning (since there is no transcendent meaning to live by) as long as it does not impinge upon or harm the self-empowerment of others to do the same. (Jonathan Haidt's book, "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," is a classic research-based book demonstrating this concept).

Take the issue of abortion, for example. For the Classic Liberal, the nascent human life in a woman's womb has its own transcendent civil right to life that should be recognized and protected by the state. For the Illiberal Progressive, the human rights of the unborn are not divine - they are assigned at the individual discretion of the mother. Since there are no transcendent absolutes in play (because faith claims are not legitimate in the civil sphere), the mother has the ultimate rights of self-determination in matters that are related to her reproductive system. Anyone interfering with their self-determination is tyrannically transgressing their pursuit of happiness.

Illiberal Progressive Tensions

These dynamics create an interesting tension within the Illiberal Progressive worldview. On the one hand, they tend to make the prevailing culture/collective/State the final arbiter and source of social principles. (How often do we hear them selectively referring to "settled law" or legal precedent as if they are ultimate standards?) On the other hand, their beliefs about human nature lead them to favor individual discovery and discernment of life principles. Life is a blank canvas upon which people write their own story and virtues - whether it is in regards to their gender identity, sexual ethics, or views about morality in general.

The problem of course, is that monolithic collectivism obliterates the self-empowerment of individuals, and radical individualism leads to chaotic anarchy. The principle of non-interference sounds good until you start to have to work through the difficult decisions life presents to us. Where do the concerns of one person end and another begins?

The answer isn't cut and dry. Take the issue of transgenderism. On the one hand, it seems imminently logical that if a biological woman wants to remove her breasts and take male hormones to pursue being a man, that is their private business - that is their own pursuit of happiness. How does it harm anyone else (non-interference)? Shouldn't we respect and honor their truth (self-determination)?

Good question. What if others within society believe that gender dysphoria is a serious mental illness and delusion that not only leads to individual human suffering and suicide, but heightens the propensity for violence - not to mention things like higher medical costs and premiums? The principles of self-determination and non-interference cannot solve this puzzle. Frankly, attempting to apply them in an absolute way creates and fuels major societal conflict that degenerates into political power plays.

Conclusion

Everyone has a view about human flourishing because happiness is important. This blog was not meant to delve into the most recent or profound ways in which it can be pursued. Rather, the point is to observe the clashing worldviews of Illiberal Progressivism and Classical Liberalism. We are not singing from the same song-book on this and it creates a lot of civil and political conflict.

We must not take for granted where our differences lie. It is not merely in the laws we want to pass or not pass. It is in how we understand our common humanity and the pursuit of happiness.