My previous three posts have been highly critical of Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein’s holier-than-thou new essay “Why I am a liberal”. Here, however, I want to focus on one point where both Sunstein and I agree: the fact that liberalism (however defined) is compatible with whatever theory of ethics you prefer. See, for example, Sunstein’s Claim #14:

14. Some liberals follow Immanuel Kant, who argued that people should be treated with respect and as ends, not as mere means to the ends of others. Emphasizing individual dignity, those who follow Kant are liberals because they are Kantians. Some liberals are utilitarians, seeking to maximize social welfare; they are liberals because they are utilitarians. Some liberals, known as “contractarians,” find it useful to emphasize the idea of a “social contract” between free and equal persons; they are liberals because they are contractarians. Many people believe that their religious tradition compels, or is compatible with, liberalism.

In other words, the ethical or moral foundations of liberalism are ephemeral! But this observation poses a new and even more vexing question: is the ethical-neutrality of liberalism a feature or a bug? Either way, all I can say is that your well-reasoned answer or guess is as good as mine!