Write for us!
Across Western democracies, political debate is becoming more polarised and more fragile at the same time. Many voters feel that ideas cannot be discussed openly, while political parties increasingly struggle to explain what they actually stand for beyond individual policies. When parties lose the ability to articulate their philosophical foundations, politics becomes reactive rather than principled.
It’s all very nice and easy to ask voters to vote tactically against people they dislike. That will always be part of politics. Getting voters to vote for your policies, even if for different reasons, can work too. Or parties can make pragmatic compromises. But political parties do need a vision and ideology that they are willing to defend and stand by.
What do we mean by fallibilism?
I would strongly like to see fallibilism get more attention than it currently receives in the party. So let’s start with defining it – fallibilism is the philosophical view that any human belief could, in principle, be mistaken, even when it is well-justified or widely accepted. It doesn’t say all beliefs are false – only that none are absolutely certain.
Because here is the thing – we have all been wrong when we were convinced we were right. We have all changed our minds. Our beliefs are not fixed. No person is guaranteed to always be right.
The success of science itself rests on this principle. Scientific knowledge advances not because scientists claim certainty, but because they assume they may be wrong. Hypotheses are tested, criticised, and replaced when better explanations emerge. A society that values fallibilism politically mirrors this process socially — allowing ideas to be challenged, corrected, and improved over time.
It is this philosophical belief that is the ultimate root of:
- Free speech
- Pluralism
- Democracy
- Checks and balances
- and more
The lessons of Mill
Look at Chapter 2 of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill and the four points he makes in that chapter:
- The suppressed opinion may be true – if an opinion is silenced, it may actually be correct. Humans are fallible, so assuming the right to suppress it is to claim our own infallibility.
- Even if the suppressed opinion is false or in error, it often contains a portion of the truth. Prevailing opinions are rarely the whole truth. Only through the collision and clash of opposing ideas can the fuller truth emerge. Suppressing speech robs society of this corrective partial truth.
- Even if the received opinion is completely true and the whole truth, it will be held as mere prejudice without vigorous contestation – if a true doctrine is never challenged or debated, most people will hold it dogmatically, without understanding its rational ground, without a deep feeling for it, or without lively conviction.
- Without debate, even a true doctrine risks losing its meaning and vital effect.
Why free speech and tolerance of a range of views is vital
Right now, free speech is very much at the forefront of many voters’ minds. And to me, there are two main philosophical lines of defence here to restore it.
A defence from fallibilism, like the above, if you personally are willing to accept you could be wrong and be open to new ideas.
And a defence from character – the ability not to take offence easily, in a way similar to Stoicism – focusing on what is in your control and what isn’t. To take a quote from Epictetus: “It isn’t events themselves that disturb people, but only their judgments about them.”
It is difficult to get your message through when you require your core tenets to be held emotionally or by dogma, without being able to move people and rhetorically defend them all the way up the premise chain back to their philosophical roots.
Parties must communicate the philosophical underpinnings beneath their policies
When political movements lose the habit of explaining why they believe something, they leave a vacuum. Populist movements are very effective at filling that vacuum with emotionally compelling but intellectually shallow answers. If liberal parties want to resist this trend, they must become comfortable once again explaining the philosophical foundations of their beliefs.
For pluralism and multiculturalism then – tolerance, even – the argument from fallibilism, that other cultures have elements of truth to them and are therefore worthy of respect, is clear. Without fallibilism – accepting that your own culture is correct in everything it does – tolerance and acceptance of others become very hard to justify when examined closely.
As for democracy – there is a nuanced difference to the usual justification for PR. Moving away from the more easily communicated argument about fair votes. Instead grounding it in the idea that other views deserve representation because those you vote for will inevitably be fallible. Policies should be debated and rationally discussed. Non-PR systems allow more policies to pass with less debate and greater unwarranted confidence that they are correct.
Ultimately that is the base of checks and balances, and devolution too. Devolved bodies are trusted to make fewer mistakes because they are closer to the impacts and the relevant information, and can therefore produce better outcomes. Any individual person’s power should be checked because anyone can be fallible and have faulty beliefs.
Fallibilism vs Moral Relativism
But the distinction between fallibilism and moral relativism is a huge one here, and it is here that liberal nations have gone wrong to some extent.
Moral relativism is the philosophical view that ethical truths are not absolute or universal, but rather subjective and relative to cultural, societal, or personal circumstances. It posits that no single moral framework is superior to another.
Fallibilism says there is a correct answer but we may misidentify it. Moral relativism says morality depends on perspective and there is no universal right or wrong.
This confluence, combined with a failure to hold and teach a true liberal character (fallible, open, Stoic, among others), leads people to avoid judging others’ views or actions in a moral way, emphasising other perspectives and prioritising harmony over truth.
Instead, liberalism should embrace open debate, seek truth, and remain willing to criticise all ideas.
An ability to not take offence to external speech, and knowledge that you can and will be wrong — allowing ideas to be debated, encouraging genuine listening, and remaining open to persuasion – is why liberalism has helped societies to develop and make progress. These are the values that must be defended and spread, and preferably taught in the education system.
Right now, the inability to distinguish these and a focus on harmony is allowing morally wrong things to be tolerated. Just because time keeps moving forwards doesn’t mean wisdom does – we may invent many more things over time, but we are still human and many old insights of philosophy will always be valid.
Rhetoric for Fallibilism
Liberalism is not populism. But it is increasingly becoming harder to say what it is. The term is all over the place. Rooting ideas back in fallibilism as one component would be a key part. But what about rhetoric to do this then?
The three main elements of rhetoric are Logos (Logic), Pathos (Emotion) and Ethos (Trust/Credibility). Populists are much better than moderates on Pathos and Ethos for their voters. An argument in a newspaper you trust would have high Ethos for you, but it would have low Ethos for a voter who dislikes it. Quite simply, you need to gain attention and perform well on all three – something those in the political centre are currently struggling to do.
To set out a vision for Liberalism in Britain, you should be able to articulate your justifications behind it and why these are good. Free Speech, Pluralism, PR – all of them need more persuasion from politicians behind them. And a reminder not just of roots to suit those who believe in them already – but reasons that have been unstated for too long as their philosophical justifications.
Making emotional appeals should easily be possible: personal stories of being wrong, of changing your mind, of making mistakes, of working with others where none of you had the whole truth but each brought something valuable – this needs to come above any subjective offence to anyone.
To conclude then – too many parties in the UK have failed to articulate coherent philosophies and philosophical underpinnings in their pitches to voters – leading to constantly changing policies and clueless leaders trying to fill the gap. It’s easy for populists to adopt persuasive policies and throw in a charismatic leader – and liberals will struggle to respond without being grounded in a time-tested coherent ideology that can be clearly communicated. For liberals, reminding ourselves of fallibilism can only help strengthen that foundation.
