Fred Matthews

This article will analyse the ‘freedom-based’ environmental critique of liberalism: the view that all forms of liberalism are wedded to individual freedoms which will inevitably allow overconsumption and unsustainable lifestyles. I shall first of all outline this ‘freedom-based’ criticism of liberalism, before arguing that it is surmountable for some forms of liberal political theory. I shall argue that most forms of liberalism support even fairly wide-ranging restrictions on individual freedom, and that many liberals have the philosophical resources to take this approach consistently. By appealing to one of their fundamental premises, ‘respect for persons’, liberal theorists can argue that we should sometimes restrict freedom to protect freedom itself, or other important values. Therefore, the freedom-based environmentalist critique of liberalism remains surmountable for at least some forms of liberal theory.

Is it permissible for the state to censor or suppress conspiracy theories, even within liberal democracies? According to a number of political and legal theorists, it is. In this paper, I will argue that the state may sometimes censor conspiracy theories, but it should be permitted to do so only after very strict conditions have been met. I shall first offer some brief thoughts about the definition of ‘conspiracy theory’. I will then critique one existing attempt to address this issue – namely Cíbik and Hardoš’s public reason approach. Next, I shall outline my own proposal. I will argue that we should sometimes consider conspiracy theorising to be a form of discriminatory speech against vulnerable individuals and groups, and we can consider it to be a form of defamation in these cases. Consequently, the state may sometimes be permitted to enact civil laws to sanction such theorising. Finally, I will outline some of the conditions that should be met before state censorship can be considered.

In the view of the Marxist philosopher Domenico Losurdo, liberalism is ‘the most dogged enemy of freedom’. This surprising statement runs contrary to the received wisdom among liberal thinkers. Losurdo and other ‘counter-historians’ of liberalism are very effective at exposing the historical atrocities that liberal states have committed, and which have been supported by liberal philosophers – including slavery, racism, genocide, and the subjugation of the working class. But what implications, if any, does this have for contemporary theory? I will argue that there is an important contemporary variation of this ‘counter-history’. Liberalism-in-practice is currently implicated in various forms of environmental degradation and resulting structural violence against disempowered groups. Moreover, divorcing these failings of liberalism-in-practice from liberalism-in-theory is a challenging philosophical endeavour, because even the philosophy of liberalism has difficulties adjusting to environmental issues. The contemporary version of the counter-history thus presents a powerful although not decisive challenge, one worthy of greater discussion.

In this article, I shall contend that Rawlsian public reason liberalism (PRL) is in tension with non-anthropocentric environmentalism. I will argue that many reasonable citizens reject non-anthropocentric values, and PRL cannot allow them to be used as the justification for ecological policies. I will analyse attempts to argue that PRL can incorporate non-anthropocentric ideas. I shall consider the view, deployed by theorists such as Derek Bell and Mark A. Michael, that PRL can make a distinction between constitutional essentials and non-essentials, and therefore ecocentric values can be employed when only non-essentials are at stake. I will also consider Simon Hailwood’s argument that PRL can incorporate concern for nature based on its ‘otherness’. I shall conclude that both positions fail to rebut the claim that PRL excludes non-anthropocentric viewpoints. I will consider the question of whether PRL’s exclusion of non-anthropocentric ethics is a problem, and I shall show that appealing to purely anthropocentric arguments leads to a variety of unpalatable conclusions. I will suggest that comprehensive liberalism can include non-anthropocentric concerns, and hence is superior from an environmental perspective.

There has been much interest in conspiracy theories (CTs) amongst philosophers in recent years. The aim of this paper will be to apply some of the philosophical research to issues in political theory. I will first provide an overview of some of the philosophical discussions about CTs. While acknowledging that particularism is currently the dominant position in the literature, I will contend that the ‘undue scepticism problem’, a modified version of an argument put forward by Brian Keeley, is an important general objection to many CTs. This in turn leads to some substantial conclusions for liberal political philosophy, as the undue scepticism problem sets up a strong argument against non-liberal alternatives to liberal thought. I shall argue that we are justified in having far more doubt about the reliability of official sources in non-liberal societies, and it is legitimate to be more sceptical about claims designed to bolster non-liberal politics. Moreover, because scepticism is often more warranted in non-liberal societies, this may provide the possibility for the state to be stable, even if it is highly tyrannical or ineffective. These considerations are not intended to be decisive, but raise unresolved questions about the viability of non-liberal politics.

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice allows social facts behind his veil-of-ignorance, thereby lessening the veil’s capacity for neutrality and defense of liberal principles. Rawls assumes social facts are discoverable without presupposed political values. But even if value-neutral social science is possible, real-world opinions, defined by political/social world-views, open the veil to bias since social facts from a non-liberal view may bolster non-liberal programmes. Alternatively, depriving those behind the veil of knowledge of social facts strips them of vital information necessary for creating a just, well-organized society. These reservations do not constitute decisive criticisms but point out unresolved tension in Rawls’ original position, and the veil’s status of neutrality is undermined.