"Putting Cruelty First" and "The Liberalism of Fear"
Judith N. Shklar came to my attention the other day. Another unsung woman of philosophy, she was a colleague of Rawls, she was a defender of liberalism.
Putting Cruelty First is not her most famous essay. Shklar's great knowledge of the Enlightenment contrasts Machiavelli to Montaigne and Montesquieu. By looking at Machiavelli through the eye of those who rejected him and the eyes of his victims, she shows how rejecting cruelty lies at the heart of liberalism.
Placing cruelty first, the most evil of all evils, is incompatible with the faith of the zealot. It makes the conqueror the least admirable of man. It dethrones mankind from their place as the pinnacle of nature. Seeing virtue in the suffering of the victim of cruelty becomes for Shklar an escape from misanthropy.
Anyway, here it is for your consideration.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1389811110d4Shklar.pdf
Putting Cruelty First is not her most famous essay. Shklar's great knowledge of the Enlightenment contrasts Machiavelli to Montaigne and Montesquieu. By looking at Machiavelli through the eye of those who rejected him and the eyes of his victims, she shows how rejecting cruelty lies at the heart of liberalism.
Placing cruelty first, the most evil of all evils, is incompatible with the faith of the zealot. It makes the conqueror the least admirable of man. It dethrones mankind from their place as the pinnacle of nature. Seeing virtue in the suffering of the victim of cruelty becomes for Shklar an escape from misanthropy.
Anyway, here it is for your consideration.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1389811110d4Shklar.pdf
Comments (55)
Quoting Banno
bears a striking resemblance to theodicy. In both cases some of us would rather say no to the obvious conclusion from evil/cruelty in the world and opt for saving the phenomena i.e maintain the integrity of the belief that god/people are good.
I suppose there's more going on in such an attitude, psychologically speaking, than people know or care to admit. Clearly it ain't something a reasonable person in faer right mind would think.
Interesting read, thanks.
I'm not sure what to make of it yet. It's seems a plausible psychological account for what "putting cruelty first" would entail, at face value.
What is interesting to me though is the idea that cruelty has to be a vice, and born out of vice... out of psychological deformities. Because in Montaignes world it's not only the zealot that is cruel, everybody is cruel... it's just that it is especially damning for Christianity because it is considered a vice there too. Hence the misanthropy.
If everybody is cruel, wouldn't that entail, given the idea that cruelty is a vice, that everybody is psychologically deformed. What then would be the cause of that deformity?
Culture could be one answer, but that seems like a difficult case to make considering that the culture was Christian and Christianity considers cruelty a vice. So it seems rather that culture is unsuccessful in rooting out something that is already there. Or maybe you would have to invoke some other opposing cultural influence as the cause, or maybe Christianity having a particularly inverse effect here?
But if not culture, then that would mean that we are cruel naturally, which would mean that we are psychologically deformed naturally. This seems problematic too, by itself. And while maybe you could make an argument for this, it would presumably have to entail some kind of supra-natural standard, from which you can evaluate that nature?
So while I definitely have the same intuition as Montaigne, I'm not sure how you would argue the point from a psychological descriptive point of view, not in the least because a certain Moustache, I will not invoke his name, gives a psychological account for cruelty at base precisely not being born out of deformity.
That. Or it means you were pretty darn sure you'd succeed... wouldn't want to be caught on the opposing end of that dynamic. However, seeing as history is written by the winners anyway, the most virtuous could be caught up in said dynamic regardless of their virtue or cruelty.. as some people like to attest.. "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
Besides, what is cruelty, really? Allowing a child to grow up in a broken home, more or less alone? Perhaps. Though, if said caregiver knew they wouldn't be around to raise them, an argument can be made that provided the child ended up growing up with "grit and gristle", able to fend for themselves before adulthood, and able to withstand the torrents of pain, despair, and loneliness without losing hope or at the very least purpose.. compared to babying someone who in this world truly has no such luxury and would find this out in due time... assuming both facts are known, what act would really have been the most cruel?
I had a dog once. Truly a great friend who got me through many a rough patch in my adolescence. As I got older, life got hectic, things got crazy. One day while I was busy working at home, I noticed he seemed to have been in the same spot for several hours. When I came up to him I noticed as he attempted to rise to greet me, his back legs buckled and could not support him. I was unsure as what to do. Veterinarian surgery was not an option at the time, and the consensus was it was probably time to put him to sleep. I had a gun, and could have asked the vet to do it humanely. Both possibilities anguished me. I waited for some time, purchasing a few items to allow him to walk around more or less the same. He survived for a decent amount of time after. But was he happy? It's a question I don't particularly care to ponder.
"It was simply a matter of exposing the triviality of the excuses offered for the enormous harms inflicted on primitive peoples."
How would Machiavelli know about Enlightenment? For a philosopher who built her career in Post-WW2 American academics in one of the most famous Ivy League Universities, it's obviously a more easier task.
Basically, Machiavelli wrote The Prince for basically a ruling Mafioso.
So what kind of instructions and guidelines would Pablo Escobar or the current leaders of the Mexican drug cartels value in their reality in which they live? Would Shklar be useful to them for practical guidelines in their day-to-day work? Both Pablo and Judith lived in the same time, so it would have been theoretically possible.
Basically my point here is that we never should take a philosopher out of his time, place and context when we look at what he says. Or at least the author should remind the reader that when and where a philosopher lived and how different were those circumstances. In fact when the circumstances are noted, then truly revolutionary or groundbreaking thinking can be found. Machiavelli or Hobbes come to mind when people compare them to later philosophers, but whenever Machiavelli is referred to I come a bit critical. Niccolo is a low bar in my view to paint as the bad guy and to take an intellectual whack at him.
(And anyway, a good politician should never admit reading or even knowing anything about Machiavelli. It's such an obvious and typical way to attack and smear someone as being Machiavellian.)
She contrast Machiavelli to Montaigne, who were not that far apart, and to Montesquieu who live a bit later, but there she does make note of differences in cultural contexts.
Also, it's not about painting Machiavelli a bad guy in some kind of moralistic sense, read the article and you'll see, it's not that long.
More honest, more realistic, when there has been in "recent years a considerable literature on Machiavelli, most of it admiring his most ‘realistic’ pages". :brow:
I think that still Judith is hitting Niccolo...or others of saying something positive about him.
Yes, I think that quote is in line with what I said, usually Machiavelli is dismissed because of some moral evaluation, he is bad/immoral because of this and that. But that is usually not all that convincing because he is not really making normative claims, he sticks to a-moral description and prediction. She tries to make an argument on his terms, i.e that his description and the conclusions he draws from them are not really realistic... if she succeeds is another matter, but it's at least an argument that is aimed at the right place.
It's an excellent definition of liberalism. For my part I might replace "freedom" with "welfare", but the basic theme seems undeniable, given basic rational concerns of coherence and consistency.
Liberalisms foundation is, for Shklar, to be found in the abhorrence of cruelty:
It is contrasted with the Kantian liberalism of conscience, the (US) Constitutional liberalism of Rights, the Liberalism of self-expression, which last I might compare with the capabilities approach of Nussbaum.
The liberalism of fear is not bound to theism, nor to atheism. It is not bound to scepticism, nor is it in essence scientific. But each of these is a fellow-traveler. It stands against class distinctions.
The liberalism of fear might better have been called the liberalism of valour.
(A better PDF would be advantageous...?)
[quote=The Liberalism of Fear by Judith N Shklar]
Every adult should be able to make as many effective decisions without fear or favor about as many aspects of her or his life as is compatible with the like freedom of every other adult. [...] Apart from prohibiting interference with the freedom of others, liberalism does not have any particular positive doctrines about how people are to conduct their lives or what personal choices they are to make.
[/quote]
Just FYI, there is some history to this take on liberalism/liberty/freedom. Elements can be found in the Cortes of León (1188), the Codex Holmiensis (1241), ..., the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), this one in particular (which Thomas Jefferson aided in putting together):
Quoting Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789
The French Revolution was nasty business, but they did seem to flesh some things out well for the future — only equal freedom in principle limits individual freedom.
Embedding morals in political codes doesn't seem easy, but restricting freedom to non-cruelty is certainly intuitive. Looking forward to actually reading the articles. (y) :)
Thanks for the read.
I’m curious why you would replace “freedom” with “welfare” when the root word of “liberalism” suggests one but not the other. It seems to me that limiting one’s freedom to only that which is compatible with the like welfare of others is not liberalism, perhaps something more like “welfarism”.
A certain level of well-being is required in order to to enjoy autonomy. We are all slaves to our basic needs. Where there is no security, there is no freedom. This understanding was gained from labor struggles of the 19th and 20th centuries.
It may appear that masters of capital are free, but they aren't in the sense that was important to Abraham Lincoln. He saw freedom as the recognition that one is not defined by the role one is playing in the world. True freedom is demonstrated by social mobility. When a society stratifies, everyone becomes locked into their roles. Lincoln would say that when people get used to having someone else do their work for them, they lose sight of the meaning of freedom.
Lack of access to food, education, and employment opportunities doesn't just rob people of well-being. It robs them of social mobility. It robs them of freedom.
Cruelty is denying someone that of which they are capable. It's not enough to fear cruelty. We can do the opposite to being cruel, by building on folk's capabilities.
It is true that a certain level of well-being is required to enjoy autonomy, and there is a strong moral argument that we should care for the well-being of others. I also agree that one must secure his freedom, with force if necessary.
But these to me are moral considerations, best left to the decisions of free people. Just as people such as yourself should have the freedom to act on your moral beliefs, others should have the freedom to do otherwise, and for the same reason.
Thanks for the clarification.
I would say liberalism allows such an approach, though, to the point of it becoming institutionalized or even generally accepted.
No. Are you?
I do not, no, and his presidency has proven that to be the case.
We simply shouldn't forget that even ages ago people understood to whom you are talking defines the message.
It's not just that Machiavelli isn't making normative claims, it's to whom he is talking. And so is with Montaigne, a politician of his era. I just reason that someone that says " it was more efficient for a self-made ruler to govern cruelly or leniently, and had decided that, on the whole, cruelty worked best." simply isn't talking to the greater public or making a portrayal of himself.
Montaigne published his Essay to record "some traits of my character and of my humours." Or the way the net puts it:
It's obvious when someone is basically cleaning his image, he would say as Shklar referred "that
the sight of cruelty instantly filled him with revulsion." Montaigne lived during the brutal Wars of Religion in France and being a politician during that time, a courtier of Charles IX among other jobs, a king that allowed the cruel massacre of St Bartholomew's Day, is the era that affected Montaigne's experiences. Montaigne, it should be noted, tried to be a moderator between Catholics and Protestants. But his essay wasn't written as advice to Charles IX or his successor.
if everyone is psychologically deformed, would that not suggest, rather than a deformation, everyone has a certain , unappealing, aspect or proclivity to cruelty? How is it a deformity if it is universal?
Yet doesn't Shklar also note in "Liberalism of Fear" that:
Because replacing freedom with "welfare" seems quite a specific agenda, if telling to pursue happiness is something that Shklar rejects as unwanted interference from the powers at be.
Yep. So a free society takes measures to secure the basic well-being of it's citizens.
Quoting NOS4A2
We won't have free people unless we look after well-being. This isn't a moralistic insight.
It's probably the case that Shklar herself was neither the first nor the last to discuss cruelty but what I find intriguing is how she focuses not on cruelty itself but on its ranking among evils. That's a fresh point of view on the issue as far as I'm concerned.
Why should cruelty occupy the top slot among evils? or, of more significance, what are the consequences of treating cruelty as summum malum?
If cruelty is the worst form of evil, we must give up the cherished idea that we're better than and must come to terms with the bitter truth that we're, in fact, the worst of the lot. Just as I suspected.
Furthermore, according to Shklar we're in the unenviable position of being torn between private and public life and I'm only guessing here but she thought the latter,as a public figure, puts us in situations that may force us to act with cruelty even though as an individual, as a private person, one may have a touch of reservation behaving that way. From this point on I suggest you fill in the gaps...
I disagree. Kind, paternalistic people such as yourself should secure the basic well-being of your fellow citizens and have the freedom to do so. Some will even desire your help. Others will prefer to pass on that, or otherwise refuse when someone wishes to tinker with the conditions of their well-being.
I completely disagree.
Do you support laws against child labor?
Not really.
It appears that kind, paternalistic people like myself have become rooted in the status quo. Is that frustrating for you?
Not at all. I see real kindness in individual acts, not in the advocacy of this or that policy.
Sounds like you've adapted nicely to contemporary liberalism then. :up:
A soft despotism is a despotism nonetheless.
That's exactly what I'm asking. A deformity would suggest that something caused it other than 'nature' or evolution, if it were natural we would call it something like a proclivity, yes. Montaigne, and with him a lot people, seem to think it's a deformity though. So the question in that account is then, what caused it?
Yeah ok, but I don't think Montaigne is saying that only to clean up his image, I think he means it, or at least it seems like he does to me.
You said you're ok with it, so I guess you're ok with despotism. :confused:
Quoting ssu
From SEP:
Seems he was making normative claims.
Is that a normative claim though? Seem more like a meta-normative/a-moral claim to me.
You do have a-moral or hypothetical shoulds, no? If you want healthy teeth, then you should brush your teeth.... is that a moral claim? I'd say no. And I think it's that kind of should statements he is making. If you want to stay in power as a prince etc...
What do you think he is saying then, that a ruler should be cruel, not because that is how you best stay in power (as a matter of causal description), but as some kind a moral imperative? That would be a weird thing to say.
Or maybe you think he says these things as some kind of apologetics for abject behaviour? That could make more sense.
I guess my question is, if it's rethorics, what is it he's trying to sell then? Maybe himself as a potential advisor to the prince, that could make sense too.
If he was a mediator between the Protestants and the Catholics, he surely meant it.
Yet I think that many politicians could honestly agree with Montaigne and then when engaged in politics follow the advice of Machiavelli.
Ask the obvious question: is he telling the Prince what to do? If so, it's a moral document.
You're agreeing with Nietzsche. :up:
Ok, so you saying that they are talking about different things then? Machiavelli about how to be effective in politics, and Montaigne more about his own personal view on things. I probably agree with that for the most part.
There has been a long debate as to whether the text should be taken at face value or not:
Interpretation of The Prince as political satire or as deceit
I'm thinking Machiavelli and Nietzsche use the same conceit: that they can tell folk what to do while pretending not to be moralising.
Sure, moral in the widest sense.
My original point was just that Machiavelli's claims like, "It's better to act cruel" could be refuted in a couple of different ways: Either by saying that cruelty is simply bad (which would be a moral evaluation) or by saying that cruelty does in fact not contribute to staying in power (which would be more a matter of causation). If Machiavelli is predominantly making claims in the latter sense, then it would seem more convincing to me to try to refute them on those terms.
Machiavelli was trying to explain how mercy can lead to chaos. You could call that master morality, but I don't think he thought of it that way.
Chaos victimizes everyone.
To different audiences, I would say.
We can see this phenomenon quite well even today. What people say publicly and what they say behind closed doors is different. That doesn't mean that they are dishonest, but simply understand that the two are different. There are enough people that eagerly take anything publicly said and portray it in the worst possible light to promote their own agenda.