Limits of Liberty

When does liberty matter? It is often thought that personal liberty is always valuable and that it has a unique intrinsic value. In The Limits of Liberty, philosopher Sarah Conly argues that it is much less valuable than traditionally believed. Conly posits that liberty only has value for its consequences-liberties that bring good things have value, but liberties that bring bad consequences have no value. This means that in many cases where liberty has been valued, we are mistaken. Restrictions on certain liberties are more acceptable than commonly thought. The Limits of Liberty lays the groundwork for this argument, then delves into controversial policy revisions across various areas. In medical ethics, Conly proposes that patient autonomy should be respected less than it currently is, highlighting instances of people being vaccinated against their will. In environmental ethics, the problem of incremental harms is discussed- particularly when each person contributes a small amount to an overall harm and thus feels no responsibility. The argument is made that each person is morally responsible for environmentally harmful actions, and that there is a duty, enforceable by the government if necessary, to eat less meat and have fewer children. When it comes to the ethics of personal expression, Conly argues for more restrictions on speech. Specifically, that there should be greater legal liability for internet speech than currently exists. In the realm of religion, a case can be made against religious accommodation, the policy of making exceptions to laws for people whose religion is contrary to the law. Ultimately, The Limits of Liberty offers novel policy recommendations in medical ethics, environmental ethics, freedom of speech policy, and freedom of religion, challenging traditional views on the value of personal liberty.