Liberals: Alas, the Time Has Come to Throw John Rawls Under the Bus

Rather, we should say that men should be able to choose which attributes they take on. To be traditionally masculine, traditionally feminine, or some combination, as long, of course, as we don’t harm others. This later proviso is known as the liberty principle. At a first pass, it may not sound that distinct from the idea of liberal neutrality I’ve spent this essay bemoaning, but its justification is very different. John Stuart Mill’s (the philosopher credited with its formulation) argument for it is rooted in what is good for people:

He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision. And these qualities he requires and exercises exactly in proportion as the part of his conduct which he determines according to his own judgment and feelings is a large one. It is possible that he might be guided in some good path, and kept out of harm’s way, without any of these things. But what will be his comparative worth as a human being? It really is of importance, not only what men do, but also what manner of men they are that do it.

So to take the case of masculinity, we want men to choose their lives, not because liberalism is neutral about this, but precisely because it’s not: because we believe that men having freedom is good for them. That we lead happier lives when we can form our own characters, pick our own hobbies and interests, rather than being forced into a narrow little box. That we will be more valuable to ourselves, and hence more valuable to others. That being self-formed will make us better sons, husbands, and fathers.

The difference is subtle but important: Both neutral liberalism and the sort I am arguing for agree that we should have freedom in how we approach gender roles, but they disagree as to why. It’s a question of how to make the argument. I think we as liberals can sometimes overthink our ultimate justifications. “Because it’s good for people” is a perfectly sensible starting point.