In Norms of Liberty (NOL), while in the process of arguing for the moral necessity of a political/legal order whose fundamental structural principles are individual basic negative rights, we discovered that there is much confusion about the role and function of universality in ethics and political philosophy. Moreover, we discovered that the role and function of universality varied greatly, depending on how one conceived not only the nature of what is good and obligatory, but also deeper issues in philosophy. We were thus drawn to questions about the nature of ethics and the difference between practical and epistemic universals—matters applicable to both politics and ethics.

Avoiding Modernity's Pitfalls: The Four Constraints

It is our contention that we need to free ourselves from certain epistemological and metaethical assumptions of Modernity—to wit, the following interrelated claims (to be referred to as “the Four Constraints”): (1) in order for moral or ethical claims to qualify as knowledge, they must have the same form as those of theoretical or speculative science; (2) universality is necessary for objectivity; (3) universality can replace objectivity; and (4) the ethical is essentially legislative. As we shall see, both in this chapter and in the ones to follow, our conclusions with respect to the Four Constraints will affect our arguments in both the political and the ethical realms. Moreover, by indicating how we may not actually be bound by these constraints, we will be taking some necessary steps toward our goal of liberating ethics from modalities more appropriate to politics.

In order to bring about this philosophical liberation from the Four Constraints, it is necessary first to consider the proper use of abstractions. Our starting principle is that although abstractions are tools for knowing reality, they are not the realities themselves; and thus we should be careful not to ascribe their form or mode to the realities they disclose.