Leonidas Makris TITLE: Perfectionism in Two Liberalisms: Analysis and Comparison ofJ.S.Mill and J.Raz. Submitted for the PhD Degree London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615482 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615482 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 a The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others. Leonidas Makris 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is difficult to convey in words the gratitude I owe to my family for giving me the opportunity and the incentives to advance my education and complete this PhD. My parents Grigoris and Anna (or Anna and Grigoris) Makris were the best teachers I could have in moral and philosophical thinking. They have profoundly shaped the way I see the world but in the most liberal way possible. They did not instil their particular ideas in what evolved as my interest in political theory; yet their lives have been the best example I could study in order to try and understand how people should live, forging thereby my view of human relations and of society itself. I continue to learn from them and I will always be indebted to them for all they offered me so generously. My brother Dionysis Makris, to whom I am extremely grateful for giving me the opportunity to live with him a happy childhood, has also crucially shaped my upbringing which eventually led to this PhD. His incomparable love for life, his matchless kindness, mental strength and endurance to withstand strain have been an invaluable inspiration for me to overcome any difficulties that have risen before and during the course of this work. Dionysis taught me that I should be thankful to life for what I have, proud for what I am and for the little I have achieved. It is to his memory that I would like to dedicate my PhD. To my companion in life Loli Tarrafeta I owe an immense debt for her endless patience and understanding throughout the course of my work. She had to bear with my rigid and abrupt behaviour stemming from my continuous and inflexible commitment to the present project. In addition, she assisted me tirelessly to sustain my workload in a positive spirit and to try and overcome in good health its shortcomings. She deserves the most special mention because without her help and her love this thesis would probably have never come to completion. It would be redundant to praise here the intellectual excellence and the renowed academic competence of Professor John Gray. It was a huge privilege to have him as a supervisor and to be exposed to his unmatched analytical thinking. But apart from being a continous source of inspiration for my work, I would like to underline that Professor Gray is a very kind and understanding person whose gentle and generous behaviour helped me to remain commited to the realization of this project even when I had to interrupt my studies. To Professor Paul Kelly who also supervised my thesis I am inbebted for his invaluable advices helping me to structure and organize better my thoughts. His synthetic skills and his affinity for clarity were an extremely useful guidance to improve and revise my work. I will try to keep as a template for any future text several of his recommendations on how to organize better an academic essay. The idea that I should develop my beliefs at a doctoral level was initially expressed by my very close friend Dr Antonis Gardikiotis. I am delighted to be able to express my deepest gratitude to him for his friendship, his stimulating conversations and his discreet and constant encouragement that gave me self-confidence and heartened me in my academic efforts. Professor Constantine Karakousis did not only make very useful comments on an early draft of my ideas. He influenced and inspired me since he is the best proof that humans can indeed develop and flourish according to a liberal perfectionist model. His unparalleled kindness, generosity and wisdom were of enormous help during difficult moments and I feel especially grateful for the privilege of having met with him. Lastly, I would like to thank very much Professor Kimberly Hutchings and Mr Matthew Greenwood for their very useful assistance to improve my text’s final literary presentation. 3 ABSTRACT Showing that a proclaimed perfectionist like Raz -whose rationale is often contested as illiberal- consistently follows a reasoning resembling greatly that of a celebrated liberal like Mill, could considerably strengthen the case to use perfectionism as part of a compelling liberal strand. The analysis of their distinctive theoretical features elucidates the holistic manner with which their conception of human flourishing informs all the constituent parts of their liberalism as well as its crux, personal autonomy. Against their contemporary interpretations, it is argued that a comprehensive conception of the good dominates Mill’s perception of liberalism and that Raz’s robust perfectionist arguments follow a logical sequence permeating not only his overall liberal stance but also his position on value-pluralism. By situating the mutual comprehensive understanding of their key liberal concepts and highlighting its advantages compared to the prevalent ‘neutralist strand’, the present comparison reinforces the coherency of their perfectionist arguments and their compatibility with liberalism. Contrary to what is widely thought, not only they cogently claim that promoting conditions for self­ development and liberty are not contradictory but if the latter is to genuinely encompass the ideal of autonomy, the former becomes a prerequisite. Verifying that in pursuing their liberal ideals they do not resort to strong paternalistic and moralistic measures refutes the principal criticism such stream of thought faces, namely that it is ultimately illiberal. If the gist of their argumentation is indeed common, this strengthens the liberal perfectionism’s position as a strand of thought with a continuous trajectory linking one of the most celebrated liberals with a theorist not considered a member of liberalism’s dominant trend. The connection would prove that the latter’s theory is not as ‘unorthodox’ as it is claimed to be, adding persuasiveness and enhancing the viability of such current of liberalism as a whole. 4 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................7 Context of Debate and the Present Contribution.....................................................7 Typology of Basic Terminology............................................................................... 16 Thesis Outline............................................................................................................21 CHAPTER 2: UTILITY AND PERFECTION IN MILL.................................................... 28 i.Mill as a Utilitarian............................................................................................................30 a. Variations and Distinctiveness of a Complex Happiness........................................31 b. Traditional and Revisionist Arguments: Assessment and Link to Perfection 39 Rule-Utilitarianism...................................................................................................43 Indirect Utilitarianism..............................................................................................51 Broad Utilitarianism.................................................................................................58 ii.Mill as a Perfectionist...................................................................................................... 65 a. Important Requisites and Conditions for Happiness............................................... 69 b. An Independent Vision o f the Good; the State’s Role in Promoting.................. it 80 c. Liberty as Autonomy................................................................................................... 91 Using Different Freedoms....................................................................................... 91 Prevailing Autonomy................................................................................................96 Individuality as Autonomy......................................................................................101 The Role o f the State............................................................................................... 110 CHAPTER 3: VALUE-PLURALISM AND PERFECTION IN RAZ ............................116 i.Raz as a Value-pluralist .................................................................................................119