Fish explained that "liberals" function according to a comforting and fictitious principle that all citizens of the world are basically similar. He emphasized that individual differences must be addressed without reference to abstract principles or procedure. "The 'universalization' of liberal principles is a dream," said Fish. He argued that principles associated with liberalism disregard history and tradition and in doing so, provide for a position that fails to transcend individual prejudices.
Fish explained that substantive justice is ignored when courts abide by procedure instead of functioning on "what is good." "Interests should not fall into abstract notions of right or wrong. Interest, instead is in the good," said Fish. "The basis of procedural rules is indifferent to outcomes."
Fish, in reference to Terry Schiavo, suggested that liberalism is incapable of aspiring to any substantive concept of the good because it is based on procedure. Fish claimed that morality was trumped by procedure when Terry Schiavo's feeding tube was removed in March 2005, after she was diagnosed in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with little chance of recovery.
In Terry Schiavo's case, Fish claimed that courts should have broken with mere procedure and focused on substantive ends. Whereas the evidence in support of her wish to die was conditional and based on her husband's testimony and oral statements, her right to life, according to Fish, is unconditional. He explained that self-preservation or the right to persist in one's being is the highest and most substantial of all goods. "When laws are anchored in procedure, who has the right to decide legal differentiation and substantive preferences of degree?" asked Fish rhetorically.
Assistant Professor of LJST Adam Sitze discussed what he viewed as a flaw in Fish's argument concerning Schiavo. "The problem with this argument is that the concept of the good upon which it's grounded-namely, that self-preservation is an unconditional good, or that life is sacred-is a central premise of the very liberal tradition that Fish criticizes as being incapable of any substantive concept of the good," said Sitze. "Fish's criticism of liberalism is valid, only to the extent that one ignores what Hobbes and Locke actually write on self-preservation and suicide."
Fish made distinctions between the public and private roles of citizens. He claimed that existence in the "public sphere" as a citizen is different from the private individual's role. He stressed the importance of tolerance and individual values. "If you are intolerant, you will do anything to adhere to the good and even institutionalize violence for that purpose," said Fish.
Professor of LJST Lawrence Douglas discussed reactions to the lecture and provided critiques of Fish's arguments. "I thought it was an excellent, provocative event. Fish's presentation was exceptionally clear and his topic-on the incommensurability of regimes of justice and regimes of the good-is obviously important and timely.
However, Douglas expressed displeasure towards Fish's critique of liberalism. "I find his relentless attacks on liberal political theory dismaying. I think he's wrong to associate liberalism with arid proceduralism-liberalism is dedicated to substantive values, thin as these may be," he said. Douglas continued,
"Fish's glee in attacking the coherence of liberal arguments combined with his unwillingness to address the difficult normative work to be done strikes me as smug."
Sitze also had several criticisms to offer. He stated, "Fish was clever, humorous, and likable, but I did not learn much," he said. "Fish in effect repeated the criticism of liberalism that Leo Strauss offered 50 years ago, namely, that liberalism is founded on tolerance but is intolerant of intolerance." Sitze then added, "The real question Fish's lecture raised, in my view, had little to do with Right vs. Good, or Procedure vs. Substance. It is what we mean when we say that 'life is sacred.'"
Spencer Robins '08, who helped secure the proper funding for the lecture, however, discussed the relevance of Fish's talk to the current realm of political debate. "Fish is an extremely important thinker and hearing him speak and engaging in discussion with him are valuable," he said. He concluded by stating, "His topic was timely, as political identity is a matter of much debate at the moment."