HUMAN NATURE --> To What Extent Are Liberals United In Their Views On Human Nature?

INTRO/JUDGEMENT

AGREE —> humans are rational

DISAGREE —> type of individualism

DISAGREE —> whether human nature warrants the state

PARA 1 - AGREE

All liberals have an optimistic view of human nature, seeing individuals as rational and capable

• Liberals largely agree that human nature = rational, reasonable, capable of progress

• classicals argued this, influenced by the period of enlightenment rather than a traditional view of human nature as rooted in Christianity and based on original sin

• This optimistic view of human nature underpins idea that legit governments arise from consent of the people rather than by force, as opposed to the monarchical governments that classical liberals were under

  • This is seen w Locke's social contract theory where rational individuals agree to be under a state that will protect their natural rights to life, liberty, property that ALL humans have, but have the ability to withdraw consent and replace it

• moderns agree, as seen w Rawl’s veil of ignorance. This argued that rational people, if unaware of their societal positions, would choose fair principles of justice, due to humans being rational and empathetic

PARA 2 - DISAGREE

Liberals disagree between egoistical and developmental individualism

• classicals advocate for egoistical individualism which is where individuals are concerned w maximising their own utility so they can thrive to the best of their ability. they believe the freedom of an individual is sacrosanct, seeing society as atomistic for this reason. they believe that because of this, the state should be limited to maintaining law and order so it doesn’t infringe on individual freedom

• moderns disagree, preferring developmental individualism where individual freedom is linked to the desire to create a society in which each person can grow and flourish. this concept downplays the pursuit of self interest that Locke argued humans are guided by. moderns use this view of human nature/individualism to justify support for an enabling state in society in order to help the disadvantaged

PARA 3 - DISAGREE

Liberals disagree on whether individuals can pursue their goals without the state

• classicals driven by a view of freedom as negative freedom, where individuals are free from state interference wherever possible. they argue that individuals should be free from interference even if they are harming themselves, w an emphasis on ‘self help’ and that people succeed/fail in society on their own efforts. for this reason classicals reject a welfare state, arguing that this creates a dependency culture and that individuals have the capacity to succeed on their own

  • negative freedom seen w Mill’s harm principle

• moderns disagree, driven by positive freedom in terms of having the resources/power to pursue one’s goals. moderns advocate that the state has a moral right to educate/help individuals to pursue their freedoms and fulfil their potential. economically disadvantaged individuals aren’t able to enjoy individual freedoms if simply left alone to struggle. humans therefore need help from the state in order to pursue self interest

  • seen w Friedan arguing that the state should intervene and legislate to prevent continued discrimination against females. although moderns see women as capable and rational, they admit that the state does need to play a role in order to make it easier for advancement

  • similarly, rawls argued for an enabling state which uses significant progressive taxation and public service provision in order to give the disadvantaged a basic level of economic freedom in order to pursue self interest as rational individuals