inqk.net

On the heels of Mitt Romney’s ridiculous speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference I thought it’d be interesting, and a throwback to that first year philosophy class I took, to offer a proof for why non-liberal societies must be oppressive.

There are a couple of philosophical terms here and I’ve tried to link to explanations on Wikipedia if you want further information.

Premises

1. People have different conceptions of the the good life.
2. There is no sound proof for why one particular conception of the good life is correct.
3. Liberalism is the only political philosophy that allows multiple conceptions of the good life.
4. Oppression is forcing people to do something they don’t want to do without logical justification.
5. Non-liberal political philosophies have a particular conception of the good life.
6. Non-liberal societies force some people to follow a particular conception of the good life they don’t want to follow.
7. Non-liberal societies justify their enforcement by claiming their conception of the good life is correct.

Conclusions

1. Since there is no sound proof for any particular conception of the good life there is no logical justification for enforcement.
2. But if a society doesn’t enforce a particular conception of the good life it is liberal.
3. All non-liberal societies are oppressive.

The converse of the third conclusion is also true (I think): namely, liberal societies are not oppressive. But I might be wrong there so I’ll just leave it at that.

It’s not quite a proof for why liberalism is the only logical form of society but it’ll do for now.