Liberalism
John Locke:
● Born during English Civil War ( 1649 execution of Charles I and dissolution of House
of Lords, England then reinvented itself as a commonwealth where royalty and
parliament worked together. Charles II reclaimed monarchy’s former grip on church
and state institutions due to the Restoration).
● Seen as father of liberal philosophy, with his book Two Treatises of Government
(1690)
● His importance to classical liberalism lies in the question he raised about human
nature and type of state that was therefore appropriate
● Denied traditional, mediaeval principle that the state was part of God’s creation and
monarchs who had ‘divine right’ to govern
● Was a parliamentarian as he believed the King had broken the social contract by
dissolving parliament without consent and accountability
● He argued that a true state would be created by mankind to serve mankind’s
interests and could only come into place if consent is given by the people who would
be governed by it.
● Unlike Thomas Hobbes who described the existence of society before the state as
‘nasty and brutish’ ( and a state was needed to be established to protect rights and
from the chaotic disorder of the ‘state of nature’), Locke argued that prior to the state
‘natural’ society served mankind’s interests tolerably well.
● Locke had an optimistic view of human nature as rational beings who act in their own
self-interest (idea of individualism)
● He believed that the state of nature was underpinned by ‘natural laws’, ‘natural
liberties/rights’; these inalienable rights are foundational equality as everyone has
right to life, liberty and property but he doesn’t mention that everybody can have
different amounts of property, life and liberty.
● For Locke natural rights couldn’t be taken away otherwise this would be an
infringement of our rights.
● The modern state was therefore designed to improve our rights and to resolve
disputes between individuals more efficiently than the state of nature would allow
● For the ‘state of law’ to be legitimate it has to respect natural rights and laws
● Locke’s ideal state would always reflect the principle that its ‘citizens’ had voluntarily
consented to accept the state’s rulings in return for the state improving their situation.
This is the social contract
● Limited government as the state always had to represent the interests of the
governed and always needed ongoing consent. Separation of powers would confirm
the limited government (separate executive, legislative and judiciary).
● If somebody was imprisoned this is an infringement of their rights but this was fine
with Locke as everybody consented to give up some of their rights in order for
protection
● In the case that the state abuses its powers, fails to safeguard natural rights or
undermines tolerance of diverse individual views and beliefs (breaks the social
contract) it can be overthrown. Can be a justification for a revolution e.g., US
● For Locke ‘government should always be the servant, not master, of the people’
● Locke’s concept of consent was only expressed will of property-owning white men
, ● In return for the state safeguarding and protecting each self-seeking person from
each other, every individual owed a duty of gratitude and obedience to the laws of the
state
Key Principles of Classical Liberalism:
● Individualism and natural rights - universal, ‘god-given’ and absolute, can’t be
challenged by governments and apply equally to all human beings as a consequence
of birth, have higher significance than rights in law, leads to the belief in foundational
equality
● Formal equality - ‘all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights’ (US
Constitution)
● Government by consent - Anarchists argue that we never agree to live under a state,
we can’t opt in voluntarily or opt out.
● Toleration - Locke wrote a ‘Letter Concerning Toleration’ where he sets out the
argument for religious toleration. Not role for gov to dictate belief; belief unlike action,
must be sincerely held; toleration is a special moral value because it suggests that
we only tolerate if we find it morally offensive), it applies only to that which you find
morally unacceptable, Locke’s argument does not extend to action e.g., you believe
in Catholicism but can’t practise it outwardly as conflict may rise due to it. The
government can act intolerantly if civil order is threatened. This is problematic
because not practising a belief outwardly is irrational as the belief will be insincere.
● Meritocracy
● Limited government - Enshrined in US Declaration of Independence (1776), English
Bill of Rights (1689), US Constitution and 1st French Republic (1789). American
Revolution and constitution (Jefferson substituted property for the pursuit of
happiness) seen as epitome of liberal principles with clear separation of power
(balanced powers, to ensure that there are checks and balances) and codified
constitution. Liberals like constitutionalism as it sets out the government's and
citizens' powers.
● Rule of law
● Private property (free market)
Criticism:
● David Hume stated the concept was undemocratic and sovereignty after all means
unlimited power e.g., in UK
● Argued that classical liberalism isn’t very democratic as their definition of rational
beings is very elitist and limited to just wealthy, property-owning, white men.
● Edmund Burke - feared belief in natural rights would lead to social instability
● Jeremy Bentham - argued rights arise from actions of government hence not
alienable
Locke’s negative freedom:
- Negative freedom is freedom from constraint from government, church, society or
other people
- Absence of coercion
,John Stuart Mill:
● Wrote On Liberty (1859)
● Defended private property, private enterprise and competition in his Principles of
Political Economy
● Emphasis on developmental freedom
● Objected communal ownership of property and equal wages because they weaken
the motive to work hard
● Recognised that if universal, education could make people unselfish
● Considered democratic as he favoured giving vote to all adults if basic education
● Recommended system where intellectual elite could vote in special national
constituencies so that representation of ordinary people would be the majority but
representation of the mentally superior (though small) would influence the decisions
Parliament takes
● Radical as he supported women’s suffrage and advocated equality of opportunity for
them in education and work
● Believed human beings should be free without interference from state or public
opinion. Individuals should be protected from pressures to conform to public opinion
● According to him, liberty should be given to those ‘capable of being improved by free
discussion’ and those in ‘the maturity of their faculties’. So liberty shouldn’t be given
to children and people of ‘backward’ societies as they have insufficient understanding
to learn from mistakes if they were allowed free. This is considered by many to be
elitist and subjective
● Allows government only to deny liberty to ‘backwards’ people if only government will
educate them and grant them their right to liberty
● In contrast to Locke, Mill was more concerned about social liberty in C19th Britain.
Also, Mill thinks you can believe what you want whereas Locke thinks you can too
but may need to oppress it if it causes conflict or practise it only in private
● Came up with negative freedom - freedom mainly involves an absence of restraints
● Feared that a democratic state had the potential to create a ‘tyranny of the majority’
● As a utilitarian, Mill believe in hedonism (pleasure was the most valuable and pain
not) but in term of higher pleasure etc
● A self-regarding action is one that (directly) affects only the agent herself.
Non-self-regarding actions are simply those that are not self-regarding because they
(directly) affect others
On liberty - Mill outlines the case for liberal individual freedom and he defends liberty of
action, freedom of thought an expression
● Freedom of thought:
- ‘If all of mankind’ but one was ‘of one opinion mankind wouldn’t be justified in
silencing that one person just like he wouldn’t be if given the power to silence
all of mankind
- Arguments to justify freedom of thought and expression
1. An opinion that some wish to oppress may be true
2. If a generally accepted idea is true e.g., religious belief or political
doctrine, it would be ‘dead dogma, not living truth’ if not fully discussed
and open to challenge (it benefits people to articulate reasons for their
belief)
, 3. Opinions that conflicts with an established idea may contain an
element of truth even if parts of it are false
● Freedom of action - freedom of action, so can act on our beliefs ‘so long as we do not
attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it’:
- 4 arguments for freedom of action
1. Alternative actions and diversity of lifestyle are necessary for a healthy
society
2. The creative nature of individuals should be encouraged to develop to
allow them and society to flourish (so humans are not just rational
beings but also creative ones)
3. People are the best judge of what is in their interests and can learn
from any mistakes - ‘maturity of their faculties’ (no good telling them
what to do)
4. Following tradition or custom is not exercising your individuality (for
Mill social pressure/expectation to conform is the worst)
● Limits on those freedoms:
- Mill offers an argument against paternalism (paternalism is the interference
with liberty with intent to promote good and prevent harm e.g., gov telling
people to wear seat belts)
- Power can only be exercised to prevent harm to others - the ‘harm principle’
preventing harm to oneself is not sufficient
- Harm is essentially violence to people, to property or to cheat
- Offence doesn’t count as harm
● Although during Mill’s time diversity was very limited, in a modern context his
argument/premise would create ‘deep diversity’
● In the modern world limits of freedom of action can be seen with public health
restrictions, drug use, in regards to prostitution/religious values and polygamy. Also
hate crime laws can limit freedom of expression e.g., limits on political views,
pornography and intolerant ideas (however all of these are set in place with intent to
protect citizens, the debate to if the state should have the right to impose this are up
for debate)
Liberalism and autonomy:
● Mill and developmental individualism -
➢ ‘better to be human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’, ‘better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’
➢ Argued there were ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures so some activities were
better than others, so not all individual choices are equally valuable and some
people e.g., children can be excluded from liberty as they aren’t developed
enough to exercise it. It is the role of the state to educate these individuals so
they can exercise liberty fully
➢ Developmental individualism is the idea that liberty should be used to develop
the individual person
● Limits to tolerance:
➢ Raises question e.g., in deep diversity we have to tolerate, individual rights
vs. group rights (is the individual always more important than the community),
public vs. private
John Locke:
● Born during English Civil War ( 1649 execution of Charles I and dissolution of House
of Lords, England then reinvented itself as a commonwealth where royalty and
parliament worked together. Charles II reclaimed monarchy’s former grip on church
and state institutions due to the Restoration).
● Seen as father of liberal philosophy, with his book Two Treatises of Government
(1690)
● His importance to classical liberalism lies in the question he raised about human
nature and type of state that was therefore appropriate
● Denied traditional, mediaeval principle that the state was part of God’s creation and
monarchs who had ‘divine right’ to govern
● Was a parliamentarian as he believed the King had broken the social contract by
dissolving parliament without consent and accountability
● He argued that a true state would be created by mankind to serve mankind’s
interests and could only come into place if consent is given by the people who would
be governed by it.
● Unlike Thomas Hobbes who described the existence of society before the state as
‘nasty and brutish’ ( and a state was needed to be established to protect rights and
from the chaotic disorder of the ‘state of nature’), Locke argued that prior to the state
‘natural’ society served mankind’s interests tolerably well.
● Locke had an optimistic view of human nature as rational beings who act in their own
self-interest (idea of individualism)
● He believed that the state of nature was underpinned by ‘natural laws’, ‘natural
liberties/rights’; these inalienable rights are foundational equality as everyone has
right to life, liberty and property but he doesn’t mention that everybody can have
different amounts of property, life and liberty.
● For Locke natural rights couldn’t be taken away otherwise this would be an
infringement of our rights.
● The modern state was therefore designed to improve our rights and to resolve
disputes between individuals more efficiently than the state of nature would allow
● For the ‘state of law’ to be legitimate it has to respect natural rights and laws
● Locke’s ideal state would always reflect the principle that its ‘citizens’ had voluntarily
consented to accept the state’s rulings in return for the state improving their situation.
This is the social contract
● Limited government as the state always had to represent the interests of the
governed and always needed ongoing consent. Separation of powers would confirm
the limited government (separate executive, legislative and judiciary).
● If somebody was imprisoned this is an infringement of their rights but this was fine
with Locke as everybody consented to give up some of their rights in order for
protection
● In the case that the state abuses its powers, fails to safeguard natural rights or
undermines tolerance of diverse individual views and beliefs (breaks the social
contract) it can be overthrown. Can be a justification for a revolution e.g., US
● For Locke ‘government should always be the servant, not master, of the people’
● Locke’s concept of consent was only expressed will of property-owning white men
, ● In return for the state safeguarding and protecting each self-seeking person from
each other, every individual owed a duty of gratitude and obedience to the laws of the
state
Key Principles of Classical Liberalism:
● Individualism and natural rights - universal, ‘god-given’ and absolute, can’t be
challenged by governments and apply equally to all human beings as a consequence
of birth, have higher significance than rights in law, leads to the belief in foundational
equality
● Formal equality - ‘all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights’ (US
Constitution)
● Government by consent - Anarchists argue that we never agree to live under a state,
we can’t opt in voluntarily or opt out.
● Toleration - Locke wrote a ‘Letter Concerning Toleration’ where he sets out the
argument for religious toleration. Not role for gov to dictate belief; belief unlike action,
must be sincerely held; toleration is a special moral value because it suggests that
we only tolerate if we find it morally offensive), it applies only to that which you find
morally unacceptable, Locke’s argument does not extend to action e.g., you believe
in Catholicism but can’t practise it outwardly as conflict may rise due to it. The
government can act intolerantly if civil order is threatened. This is problematic
because not practising a belief outwardly is irrational as the belief will be insincere.
● Meritocracy
● Limited government - Enshrined in US Declaration of Independence (1776), English
Bill of Rights (1689), US Constitution and 1st French Republic (1789). American
Revolution and constitution (Jefferson substituted property for the pursuit of
happiness) seen as epitome of liberal principles with clear separation of power
(balanced powers, to ensure that there are checks and balances) and codified
constitution. Liberals like constitutionalism as it sets out the government's and
citizens' powers.
● Rule of law
● Private property (free market)
Criticism:
● David Hume stated the concept was undemocratic and sovereignty after all means
unlimited power e.g., in UK
● Argued that classical liberalism isn’t very democratic as their definition of rational
beings is very elitist and limited to just wealthy, property-owning, white men.
● Edmund Burke - feared belief in natural rights would lead to social instability
● Jeremy Bentham - argued rights arise from actions of government hence not
alienable
Locke’s negative freedom:
- Negative freedom is freedom from constraint from government, church, society or
other people
- Absence of coercion
,John Stuart Mill:
● Wrote On Liberty (1859)
● Defended private property, private enterprise and competition in his Principles of
Political Economy
● Emphasis on developmental freedom
● Objected communal ownership of property and equal wages because they weaken
the motive to work hard
● Recognised that if universal, education could make people unselfish
● Considered democratic as he favoured giving vote to all adults if basic education
● Recommended system where intellectual elite could vote in special national
constituencies so that representation of ordinary people would be the majority but
representation of the mentally superior (though small) would influence the decisions
Parliament takes
● Radical as he supported women’s suffrage and advocated equality of opportunity for
them in education and work
● Believed human beings should be free without interference from state or public
opinion. Individuals should be protected from pressures to conform to public opinion
● According to him, liberty should be given to those ‘capable of being improved by free
discussion’ and those in ‘the maturity of their faculties’. So liberty shouldn’t be given
to children and people of ‘backward’ societies as they have insufficient understanding
to learn from mistakes if they were allowed free. This is considered by many to be
elitist and subjective
● Allows government only to deny liberty to ‘backwards’ people if only government will
educate them and grant them their right to liberty
● In contrast to Locke, Mill was more concerned about social liberty in C19th Britain.
Also, Mill thinks you can believe what you want whereas Locke thinks you can too
but may need to oppress it if it causes conflict or practise it only in private
● Came up with negative freedom - freedom mainly involves an absence of restraints
● Feared that a democratic state had the potential to create a ‘tyranny of the majority’
● As a utilitarian, Mill believe in hedonism (pleasure was the most valuable and pain
not) but in term of higher pleasure etc
● A self-regarding action is one that (directly) affects only the agent herself.
Non-self-regarding actions are simply those that are not self-regarding because they
(directly) affect others
On liberty - Mill outlines the case for liberal individual freedom and he defends liberty of
action, freedom of thought an expression
● Freedom of thought:
- ‘If all of mankind’ but one was ‘of one opinion mankind wouldn’t be justified in
silencing that one person just like he wouldn’t be if given the power to silence
all of mankind
- Arguments to justify freedom of thought and expression
1. An opinion that some wish to oppress may be true
2. If a generally accepted idea is true e.g., religious belief or political
doctrine, it would be ‘dead dogma, not living truth’ if not fully discussed
and open to challenge (it benefits people to articulate reasons for their
belief)
, 3. Opinions that conflicts with an established idea may contain an
element of truth even if parts of it are false
● Freedom of action - freedom of action, so can act on our beliefs ‘so long as we do not
attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it’:
- 4 arguments for freedom of action
1. Alternative actions and diversity of lifestyle are necessary for a healthy
society
2. The creative nature of individuals should be encouraged to develop to
allow them and society to flourish (so humans are not just rational
beings but also creative ones)
3. People are the best judge of what is in their interests and can learn
from any mistakes - ‘maturity of their faculties’ (no good telling them
what to do)
4. Following tradition or custom is not exercising your individuality (for
Mill social pressure/expectation to conform is the worst)
● Limits on those freedoms:
- Mill offers an argument against paternalism (paternalism is the interference
with liberty with intent to promote good and prevent harm e.g., gov telling
people to wear seat belts)
- Power can only be exercised to prevent harm to others - the ‘harm principle’
preventing harm to oneself is not sufficient
- Harm is essentially violence to people, to property or to cheat
- Offence doesn’t count as harm
● Although during Mill’s time diversity was very limited, in a modern context his
argument/premise would create ‘deep diversity’
● In the modern world limits of freedom of action can be seen with public health
restrictions, drug use, in regards to prostitution/religious values and polygamy. Also
hate crime laws can limit freedom of expression e.g., limits on political views,
pornography and intolerant ideas (however all of these are set in place with intent to
protect citizens, the debate to if the state should have the right to impose this are up
for debate)
Liberalism and autonomy:
● Mill and developmental individualism -
➢ ‘better to be human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’, ‘better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’
➢ Argued there were ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures so some activities were
better than others, so not all individual choices are equally valuable and some
people e.g., children can be excluded from liberty as they aren’t developed
enough to exercise it. It is the role of the state to educate these individuals so
they can exercise liberty fully
➢ Developmental individualism is the idea that liberty should be used to develop
the individual person
● Limits to tolerance:
➢ Raises question e.g., in deep diversity we have to tolerate, individual rights
vs. group rights (is the individual always more important than the community),
public vs. private
