The problem of being human is that we live in an actual world. To judge whether particular behavior is ethical, we must judge the actual behavior in terms of the actual world. Hence, the platitudes of the ideal must be discarded in favor of the practical. The liberal perspective on the world grapples with the arrest of thought that arises when the ideals of liberalism confront the absurdities that result from consistent application of principles under any circumstance. This is especially true regarding the liberal fealty to the idea of tolerance.
'Tolerance,' as a general behavioral guide, makes good sense and is wholly defensible. I can persuasively argue that society and the individual function best when we tolerate differences between members of society so long as a particular behavior of a person or group does not cause great harm to other members of society. If we accept that persons have rights of autonomy and self-determination, then persons must be free to exercise those rights. Persons will not be free to exercise their rights of autonomy and self-determination unless formal rules require persons to be tolerant of other persons' behavior. The formal rules have been present since the founding of the Republic and do not reflect some sort of touchy-feely political correctness. The First Amendment is the most prominent example of a formal rule requiring that we tolerate certain behavior. The Constitution is littered with other instances of rules requiring tolerance between citizens. The Commerce Clause of Article 1 is another example of the Constitution formalizing tolerance through the elimination of trade barriers between states. Most would agree that such minimum levels of tolerance are necessary for a functioning civil society.
The problem with the idea of tolerance arises when it is applied as an absolute rule to be followed in every circumstance. The First Amendment offers a good example of the absurdities that can result when we do not follow a pragmatic approach to the application of tolerance as a behavioral guide. The courts in the United States frequently limit speech that the First Amendment would otherwise seem to protect. Hence, the court differentiates between political speech, to which it affords the highest protection, and commercial speech, to which it has generally afforded the lowest protection. The courts recognize that the First Amendment, despite its language, is not an absolute prohibition on regulating speech because to do so would be untenable and would lead to absurd results in practice. Hence, the First Amendment does not protect a person who yells 'fire' in a crowded theater.
In the context of political speech, the formulation for determining what speech is protected has been variously described as 'clear and present danger' or 'inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or cause such action.' The words may change, but the analysis the court engages in is essentially an ad hoc judgment of whether the speech is intended to cause actual physical harm and is likely to do so. Precedent and common notions of acceptability guide the courts' decision-making process. American courts have a remarkably high level of tolerance for offensive and hateful speech that could be regulated in most other countries. Nevertheless, American courts place a limit on the freedom of speech based on a pragmatic analysis of the effect of the speech in the context of the historical levels of tolerance Americans have had for expression.
The point is that even a doctrine shaped by an Enlightenment notion of freedom and tolerance is not absolute in practice. While the issues in free speech cases are often thorny and difficult to resolve, we do resolve them without throwing up our hands and simply sanctioning all speech. No one with a hint of seriousness about them would suggest that American courts somehow fail by not interpreting the First Amendment in absolute terms. As noted above, we live in an actual world in which we have to make practical judgments about whether actual behavior is acceptable.
The context of the First Amendment is a useful example of how a liberal idea of tolerance is actually applied to protect the core principle of free speech without reaching absurd results. The example can be expanded to demonstrate how Liberalism can and should judge whether behavior is ethical. We must first abandon the idea that perfect ideational consistency is virtuous. Again, easy examples abound. No one doubts that as a general principle lying is bad. It is equally true that no one doubts that in the particular case of Anne Frank and her family, her father's gentile employees were right to lie to the authorities and hide the Frank family. If we are to cling to perfect ideational consistency as a necessary condition of ethical principles, then lying under any circumstance would have to be judged unethical.
For most persons, the Anne Frank example is not particularly difficult as most persons would agree that lying is generally bad but that there are circumstances when lying is necessary. Most persons have little difficulty with the Anne Frank example because their response to the ethical nature of lying is guided by the practical. Most persons are not necessarily wholly instrumentalist in their ethics, but neither are they relativist. If you ask most persons about ethical behavior generally, they will espouse general principles or platitudes to describe their own conception of ethical behavior; however, most persons will not think it a deficit in their conception of ethical behavior to deviate from general principles when specific circumstances require it.
The same should be true of any analysis of ethical behavior from a Liberal point of view. If we lived elsewhere than the world, perfect consistency of general principles with actual behavior might be possible. We live in the world, however, so perfect consistency of general principles with actual behavior is simply not possible. Conduct, actual behavior, occurs in specific contexts that do not conform to any principles. An ethical conundrum that arises in practice is a conundrum because it requires the application of general principles to a particular situation may implicate different principles and lead to absurd results if fealty to the general principles is demanded. We need to recognize that a pragmatic response to an ethical conundrum or dilemma does not diminish general ethical principles. Rather, the general principles that inform our notion of ethical behavior still serve as a guide to reaching the best possible result when faced with an ethical conundrum.
How can this be so? The principles of Liberal ethics generally promote human flourishing. Under this rubric comes the utilitarian principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. So too does the concept of personal autonomy in the Liberal tradition fall under the rubric of promoting human flourishing. Essentially, the Liberal thinker recognizes or argues that the best manner for achieving human flourishing in the world is through the application of Liberal principles to civil society. While Liberal principles may represent the most effective means of achieving human flourishing, the principles are means to achieving human flourishing. As such, they are not ends in themselves and do not have independent value apart from their tendency to maximize human flourishing.
When faced with an ethical conundrum, the only approach that squares with the Liberal notion of ethics is to follow the course of action the is most likely to achieve human flourishing in the actual situation in which the decision must be made. This may require deviating from a Liberal principle in a particular situation without abandoning the principle in general terms. Thus, we should strive for tolerance, but not at the expense of human flourishing. We should strive for truthfulness, but not at the expense of human flourishing. This is not a diminution of Liberal ethics but rather an affirmation of its power. Simply because we do not allow a person to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater or because we condone lying to protect the lives of a Jewish family does not mean our ethics fail. To the contrary, the ability to maintain adherence to general ethical principles in the way one lives while acting to promote the end that the principles are designed to achieve in particular circumstances demonstrates the strength of our ethics.
