To what extent do modern and classical liberals agree over human nature?

What are the two themes?

Over the qualities humans possess and how individualistic they are

First theme - over the qualities of humans - How do they agree on the enlightenment view of humans?

The Enlightenment view of humans -  Rational and self-directed – life is not about tradition, doing what you think. Using reason to determine that, life is progressive, meant to improve things.

○      John Stuart Mill’s view of the capacity to plan - rather than accepting whatever life offers as ‘fate’ or ‘the will of God’ people have the capacity to plan to achieve a desired outcome – to make their life better 

First theme - over the qualities of humans - How do they agree on the mechanistic theory?

Locke’s view of the ‘mechanistic theory - both agree that mankind is rational and therefore is capable of devising a state which reflects mankind’s needs

First theme - over the qualities of humans - How do they disagree on whether the individual qualities of humans are innate or whether they need be developed?

  Classical liberals say they are innate - you are born with them and nothing else is required and that all that is needed is ‘negative liberty / negative freedom’ – freedom from interference to develop yourself. Whereas, Modern liberals say they aren’t innate and these qualities must be nurtured in order to be fully realised. eg. John Stuart Mill. Modern liberals recognised the complexity of the debate with the idea of ‘positive freedom’. Not everyone is in the position to do the process of developmental individualism. Do they have the opportunity in certain circumstances? (eg. Betty Friedan - need the social conditions for freedom)

Second theme - how individualistic they are - Agree point.

Humans are individualistic. eg. Locke’s view of natural rights. Human have them in the state of nature.  Individual - the starting point for all analysis. Individual solutions, not collective solutions. 

Second theme - how individualistic they are - Disagree point

Classical liberals see humans as naturally egotistical and competitive. eg. Samuel Smiles (“self - help”) - by helping people, you are undermining their individuality. Eg. Don’t give to charity – people need to have autonomy to lift themselves. eg. Herbert Spencer (Survival of the fittest)

Whereas Modern liberals see humans as individualistic but they need to maximise their individual freedom by operating collectively. eg. Rawls - state intervention (stimulates development, help each other, standard of society will rise up). It is in everyone’s self – interest that people get an education. We are all much more cooperative in an equal society than in an inequal society. 

Conclusion - How far do they agree?

Although there are some disagreements on superficial elements, liberals mostly agree because they both fundamentally believe in freedoms and they have autonomy to develop. They just disagree on how to get there.