LIBERALISM ESSAY PLANS
To what extent to modern and classical liberals agree on human nature
INDIVIDUALISM
They agree They disagree
- Intrinsic value and importance … but in different ways
of the individual is at the heart
of liberalism for both types Classical
- Believe in individual abilities to - Egoistical individualism- people prefer to pursue self-interest
perceive and pursue their own because they are self-seeking and self-reliant
interests - Hobbes- humans are inherently selfish
- Immanuel Kant- Individuals - Focused on atomism- what each individual can do for
are unique and have equal themself
worth and when given
opportunities, will advance Modern
- People should be used as - Developmental individualism- plays down the pursuit of self
ends and not means because interest and highlights the need to have some support for
it violates their intrinsic value- state intervention to aid the disadvantaged
categorical imperative - Without this, not everyone can be truly free within our
- Both seek to enhance system of free-market capitalism due to extenuating
individual freedom… circumstances that could hold people back from pursuing
their own interests
- Friedan (The Feminine Mystique 1963) - conditioning led
women to become wives and homemakers (not human
nature) therefore modern liberals see the need to have
some intervention to give people the option to choose their
own path of self-interest
RATIONALISM / PLEASURE
They agree They disagree
- Both believe in rationalism as Classical
a foundational part of human - Human rationality is why we do not need state intervention
nature - Utilitarianism- Jeremy Bentham says humans are
- Positive potential of human motivated by the desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain
nature for themselves- part of his concept of individual liberty
- Believe the best in human - Wollstonecraft (A vindication of the rights of woman 1792)-
capability reinforced this and added on that women are just as rational
- Rejects- humans are limited and capable as men- therefore it is in humans nature to be
- Should be able to enjoy rational and everyone can therefore help themself pursue
equality of opportunity their own interests, including women
because all humans can
reason Modern
- Better for people to take - More complicated than that- social justice is still necessary,
responsibility for themselves even with rationality because of social disadvantage
and make mistakes than take - JS Mill (On Liberty (1859) - pleasure and pain is not as black
instruction from above due to and white as Bentham put it- can be split into higher and
a blind faith in authority and lower ones
tradition - Higher ones → greater utility → we can use these to
, - Rationality in practice develop and progress our individuality
however, means different - This is only possible and pleasure can only be progressive if
things… all people in society can access these higher, developmental
pleasures
- Conscious of social justice to ensure that everyone can
pursue their interests
TOLERANCE / FREEDOM
They agree They disagree
- Both adopt a tolerant mindset Classical
where they are respectful of - Negative freedom- individuals are left alone by the state
differing cultures, values and except for when they have to be subject to external
beliefs constraint if their actions threaten another’s freedom
- View humans from a - JS Mill- harm principle
standpoint of equality- - This is how individuals can thrive whilst still conserving their
therefore everyone’s views tolerance for other people and not causing harm to anyone
and backgrounds should be
respected Modern
- This is what makes a good - More holistic view of freedom → pursuing the common good
society- not the belief in birth as well as their own interests
right based superiority - TH Green- society is an organic whole where both
- This tolerance is expressed aspects (common good and personal interest) have to
through ideas of limiting the be considered in order to have positive freedom
harm towards others that is - In order to utilise one’s personal talents → state
caused by freedom, but intervention
modern and classical liberals
do this to different extents…
To what extent to modern and classical liberals agree on the state
LIMITED GOVERNMENT / THE STATE
They agree They disagree
- Believe in the existence and Classical
basic function of the state - Minimal state- ‘night watchman’- laissez faire capitalism
through the social contract- - Lord Acton- ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute
state is based on the power corrupts absolutely’- humans are self seeking
agreement of the people, and therefore they may misuse power at the expense of others if
the mechanistic theory- people they have enough
created the state to serve - Locke (Two Treatises of Government 1690)- ‘the end of law
them and act in their interests is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge
freedom… where there is no law there is no freedom’- a
limited govt is necessary so that people in power can also
be subject to the law and there will be no abuse of power
- No rational person would submit to arbitrary rule where the
govt has unlimited power- this would not be in anyone’s
best interest
Modern
- Enabling state- for a fair society where people can make the
To what extent to modern and classical liberals agree on human nature
INDIVIDUALISM
They agree They disagree
- Intrinsic value and importance … but in different ways
of the individual is at the heart
of liberalism for both types Classical
- Believe in individual abilities to - Egoistical individualism- people prefer to pursue self-interest
perceive and pursue their own because they are self-seeking and self-reliant
interests - Hobbes- humans are inherently selfish
- Immanuel Kant- Individuals - Focused on atomism- what each individual can do for
are unique and have equal themself
worth and when given
opportunities, will advance Modern
- People should be used as - Developmental individualism- plays down the pursuit of self
ends and not means because interest and highlights the need to have some support for
it violates their intrinsic value- state intervention to aid the disadvantaged
categorical imperative - Without this, not everyone can be truly free within our
- Both seek to enhance system of free-market capitalism due to extenuating
individual freedom… circumstances that could hold people back from pursuing
their own interests
- Friedan (The Feminine Mystique 1963) - conditioning led
women to become wives and homemakers (not human
nature) therefore modern liberals see the need to have
some intervention to give people the option to choose their
own path of self-interest
RATIONALISM / PLEASURE
They agree They disagree
- Both believe in rationalism as Classical
a foundational part of human - Human rationality is why we do not need state intervention
nature - Utilitarianism- Jeremy Bentham says humans are
- Positive potential of human motivated by the desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain
nature for themselves- part of his concept of individual liberty
- Believe the best in human - Wollstonecraft (A vindication of the rights of woman 1792)-
capability reinforced this and added on that women are just as rational
- Rejects- humans are limited and capable as men- therefore it is in humans nature to be
- Should be able to enjoy rational and everyone can therefore help themself pursue
equality of opportunity their own interests, including women
because all humans can
reason Modern
- Better for people to take - More complicated than that- social justice is still necessary,
responsibility for themselves even with rationality because of social disadvantage
and make mistakes than take - JS Mill (On Liberty (1859) - pleasure and pain is not as black
instruction from above due to and white as Bentham put it- can be split into higher and
a blind faith in authority and lower ones
tradition - Higher ones → greater utility → we can use these to
, - Rationality in practice develop and progress our individuality
however, means different - This is only possible and pleasure can only be progressive if
things… all people in society can access these higher, developmental
pleasures
- Conscious of social justice to ensure that everyone can
pursue their interests
TOLERANCE / FREEDOM
They agree They disagree
- Both adopt a tolerant mindset Classical
where they are respectful of - Negative freedom- individuals are left alone by the state
differing cultures, values and except for when they have to be subject to external
beliefs constraint if their actions threaten another’s freedom
- View humans from a - JS Mill- harm principle
standpoint of equality- - This is how individuals can thrive whilst still conserving their
therefore everyone’s views tolerance for other people and not causing harm to anyone
and backgrounds should be
respected Modern
- This is what makes a good - More holistic view of freedom → pursuing the common good
society- not the belief in birth as well as their own interests
right based superiority - TH Green- society is an organic whole where both
- This tolerance is expressed aspects (common good and personal interest) have to
through ideas of limiting the be considered in order to have positive freedom
harm towards others that is - In order to utilise one’s personal talents → state
caused by freedom, but intervention
modern and classical liberals
do this to different extents…
To what extent to modern and classical liberals agree on the state
LIMITED GOVERNMENT / THE STATE
They agree They disagree
- Believe in the existence and Classical
basic function of the state - Minimal state- ‘night watchman’- laissez faire capitalism
through the social contract- - Lord Acton- ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute
state is based on the power corrupts absolutely’- humans are self seeking
agreement of the people, and therefore they may misuse power at the expense of others if
the mechanistic theory- people they have enough
created the state to serve - Locke (Two Treatises of Government 1690)- ‘the end of law
them and act in their interests is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge
freedom… where there is no law there is no freedom’- a
limited govt is necessary so that people in power can also
be subject to the law and there will be no abuse of power
- No rational person would submit to arbitrary rule where the
govt has unlimited power- this would not be in anyone’s
best interest
Modern
- Enabling state- for a fair society where people can make the
