Liberalism

John locke

What did he reject and what did he propose?

John Locke fundamentally denied the traditional, medieval principle that the state was a natural extention of divine will or part of God’s ordained creation. He strongly rejected the longstanding belief that political authority was granted directly by a celestial power, particularly the doctrine of the divine of “divine right of kings” which asserted that monarchs ruled as God’s appointed representatives on earth. According to Locke such claims not only lacked rational foundation, but also served to justify absolute power and suppress individual freedms. He challenged the idea that people were born as mere subjects of the state, bound by a quasi religious duty to submit unquestioningly to the will of the monarch. Instead Locke proposed a radically different view: the state is a human construct, established through the collective agreement of free and equal indivduals who choose to come together for mutual benefit.

can you expand on his social contract theory?

In his social contract theory, legitimate political authority derives not from divine sanction but from consent of the governed. Government is lockes view exists not to elevate rulers above the people, but to protect the natural rights of its citizens - namely, life, liberty and property. If a government fails in this duty or rules without consent, the people not only have the right but the responsibility to alter or abolish it. Thus Locke’s vision of a true state was one rooted in human agency, rational government accountability to those it servce.

he also talks about the principle of a limited government?

Because of its inherently contractual nature, the state, as envisoned by John Locke would necessarily have to embody the principle of limited government. That is, its powers and functions would be deliberately constrained so that it could never act independently or in oppositon to the interests of the people it governs. The authority of such a government would not be absolute or arbitary, but conditional - limited to represent the will and welfare of the governed and continually reliant on their ongoing consent. In Locke’s framework, this consent is not a one time event but a continuous process, meaning that the legitimacy of the state depends on its ability to maintain public trust and accountability at all times.

b e t t y → f r i e d a n

wha

what does she say about culture channels?

Betty Friedan argued that illiberal and restrictive attitudes towards women were not enforced soley through laws or formal institutions, but were deeply embedded within the culture of the mid-20th century American Society. These attitudes were transmitted through a variety of culture channels - including popular media, advertising, education, psychology - which reinforced narrow and limiting ideas about women’s roles. Women were largely portrayed and encouraged to find fulfillment only through domesticity, marriage and motherhood, while ambitions beyond the home were dismissed or pathologigzed. Friedan famously described the resulting satisfaction among women as the problem that has no name - a widespread sense of unfilfillment and frustrastion that stemmed not from individual failings but from a society that systematically denied women autonomy and personal development. By drawing attention to the role of culture in maintaining gender inequality, Friedan challenged not just legal discrimination, but the entire ideological system that sustained women’s subordination.

what is her book → THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE

Her most important contribution to feminist ideology is her groundbreaking book the feminist mystique, published in 1963. Better Friedan sought to bring attention to the widespread dissatisction and lack of fulfilment experienced by American housewives in the post world war 2 era. She argued that women were being confined to narrowly defined roles as wives, mothers, and homemakes, roles that were idealised by society but often left women feeling isolated purposeless, and intellectually unchallenged.

what did she believe about female emancipation?

Friedan believed passionately in the emancipation of women from the confines of a patriarchal society that restricted their roles and opportunities. During a time when social mores where deeply conservative and and reinforced traditional gender roles, Friedan boldly argued that women were just as capable as men in performing any type of work or career path they chose. She rejected the notion that women should be limited to domestic duties or subordinate roles in society. Beyond simply advocating for women’s rights in theory, Friedan was also a advocate for raising women’s consciousness - encouraging them to recognise and question the systematic inequalities and social expectations that constrained their lives. At the same time, she lobbied actively for legislative reforms to adress gender inequality, pushing for changes in laws and policies that would ensure equal rights and opportunities for women.

what she find during the interviews with American women?

During her interviews with American women, she discovered that very few of them had ever encountered a positive female role model who sucessfully balanced a career outside the home with family responsibilities. This lack of visible examples contributed to many women feeling limited and uncertain about their own possibilities beyond domestic life. Friedan also observed that housewives were often tied to the kitchen skin, meaning they were trapped by the endless demands and responsibilities of household chores and childcare.

John Rawls

in his book the theory of justice, what 2 things did he talk about?

• foundational equality

  • redistribution of wealth

FIRST, what was foundational equality?

Firs , to restate the idea that the core principle of foundational equality means that individuals require not only formal equality under the law and constitution but also a greater degree of social and economic equality in their everyday lives. This principle emphasizes that legal rights alone are insufficient if social and economic conditions prevent people truly enjoying those rights or participating fully in society. John Rawls argued that achieving this broader equality was essential to creating a just society - one in which all individuals have the opportunity to live rich, meaningful and fulfilled lives. However, Rawls maintained that such equality could maintained through a significant redistribution of wealth and resoources, which requires an enabling state actively involved in shaping economic outcomes. This would involve extensive public spending on social programs and services designed to reduce inequality and promote welfare. To finance these efforts, Rawls supported the use of progressive taxation, where those with greater wealth contribute proportionally more to support the commn good. Only through these measure, Rawls concluded, that a social could become geniunely just, ensuring fairness not only in law but also social and economic realities.

what did he think about the redistribution of justice?

A THEORY OF JUSTICE aimed to demonstrate that a significant redistribution of wealth was not, as critics like Friedrich von Hayek had claimed, simply a surrender to socialism or a rejection of liberal values. Instead, Rawls argued that such redistribution could be fully compatible with core liberal principles of fairness and justice. To support this argument, Rawls developed a set of philosophical conditions designed to help imagine what a just society would look like. The first of these was what he called the original position. In his thought experiment, individuals are asked to imagine themselves behind a metaphorical veil, tasked with designing a new society from scratch - one they would consider better and more than the new society they currently inhabit.

he talks about the veil of ignorance, what is this?

This concept requires that individuals making decisions abut the structure of society do so without any knowledge of their own particular circumstances, such as their race, gender, class, abilities, or social status. In other words, they have no idea whether they themselves would be rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged, part of the majority or a minority group. By removing these personal biases and self interests, Rawls believed that people would design fair and just principles of society that protect the rights and well-being of all, especially the most vulnerable. This approach was intended to ensure impartiality and fairness in the rules governing society, preventing decisions that favour one group over another based on arbitrary or accidental factors

how did Rawls argue this would influence human nature?

Rawls argued that when individuals are placed in the conditions of the original postion and behind the veil of ignorance, their decisions would be guided by human nature - particularly by qualities such as rationality and empathy. Because they would not know what positions they themselves occupy in the society they were designing , Rawls believed that rational individuals would choose to structure society in a way that ensured the worst off members were significantly better than they might be in current, real world society. This would not be out of pure altruism, but from a reasoned desire to protect themselves in case they ended up among the least advantaged. As a result, Rawls concluded that a society with an enlarged role for the state, involving higher levels of taxtation and significant redistribution of wealth was entirely compatible with liberalism’s traditional emphasis on government by consent.

Did he reject utilitarianism?

Rawls rejected utilitarianism as a guiding principle for justice because he believed it failed to adequately respect the diversity of individual desires, ambitions and life plans. In a utilitarian framework - where the goal is to maximise overall happiness - the rights and interests of some individuals may be sacraficed if doing so benefits the greater good. Rawls saw this as a serious flaw, since it could lead to situations where minority groups or disadvantaged individuals are unfairly overlooked or harmed for the sake of majority welfare.

Mary Wollstonecraft

Mary Wollstonecraft

What did she think about the enlightenment?

Wollstonecraft’s primary claim was rooted in the belief that the Enlightenment’s optimistic view of human nature - particularly the idea that human beings are capable of reason and self improvement - should be applied universally to both men and women. Englightenment thinkers celebrated the power of reason, education and individual liberty, yet these ideals were largely reserved for men. Wollstonecraft challenged this inconsistency, arguing forcefully that women too are rational beings, and therefore deserve the same opportunities to develop their minds and exercise their freedom. She criticised the prevailing attitudes in 18th century england, where both society and the state operated on the assumption that women were intellectually inferior and emotionally governed. As a result, women were denied individual freedom, formal equality and access to public life. For example they were rarely permitted to own property in their right, nor were they able to access well paid or intellectually stimulating employment.

What did she think about marriage?

Marriage, as Wollstonecraft observed, further entrenched women’s subordination. Once married, a woman effectively lost much of her legal identity. She had little to no protection under the law from domestic abuse, and in most case, no legal right to divorce her husband, no matter the circumstances. In the political sphere, women were entirely excluded, they could not vote for those who governed them nor participate in public decision-making. Wollstonecraft condemned this as a clear violation of the principle of government by consent, a foundational idea in liberal political philosophy that governments derive legitimacy only through the consent of the governed. If women were denied the vote and a voice in politics how could they be said to have consented?

What is A Vindication Of the Rights Of Women?

In a Vindication of the rights of woman, Mary Wollstonecraft challenged the deeply ingrained belief that women were naturally inferior to men. She argued that this supposed inferiority was not due to nature but rather to a lack of access to education and meaningful opportunities. Wollstonecraft insisted that women are rational creatures just like men, and that reason - not beauty, charm or submission should be the basis of respect and value in sciety. If women were given the same educational opportunities as men, she argued, they would prove themselves to be just as intelligent and capable. She believed that proper education would allow women to become independent thinkers, better mothers and more equal partners in marriage, rather than mere dependents or ornaments.

J.S. MILL

What does he say about harm principle?

Given the enduring influence of his work on both political theory and legal foundations of liberal democracies, it is fitting to begin with one of his mst famous and impactful contributions they harm principle. In his seminal work On Liberty 1959, Mill draws a crucial distinction between self regarding and other regarding actions. He argues that individuals should be free to pursue their own actions, choices and lifestyles - as long as those actions do not cause harm to others. This forms the basis of the harm principle, the idea that the only reason for society or state to restrict an individual’s liberty is to prevent them from harm t others. As long as our behaviour affects only ourselves, the state has no right to interfere. This principle places a strong emphasis on personal autonomy, holding that individuals are the best judges of their interests and should be free to live as they see fit.

what did mill think about tolerance?

Mill argued strongly in favour of tolerance and diversity, believing that a free and healthy society should not only accept but actively celebrate a wide range of lifestyles, religions, beliefs and cultures. From Mill, the richness of human life comes from its variety: no single belief system, tradition, or way of life should be imposed on everyone. He maintained that by allowing different individuals and communties to live according to their own values, society would benefit from a dynamic exchange of ideas. This diversity would naturally lead to intellectual and moral competition in which different viewpoints and ways of living could be debated, tested and refined over time.

what did he believe about limited government

Later in life, John Stuart Mill revised his earlier commitment to a minimal state acknowledging that some government intervention was necessary to prevent social and economic injustice, especially for the poor. While he supported a flat income tax, he also advocated for inheritance tax, arguing that the transmission of wealth across generations created unfair advantages and undermined equal opportunity.

Thomas green

how much of a role did he believe the state had?

T.H. Green believed that the state had an active and significant role in promoting individual self-development and social justice. Unlike classical liberals, who saw the state mainly as a protector of negative liberty, Green argued that true freedom - what he called positive liberty - meant having the actual ability to develop one’s potential and live and fulfilling life. For Green the state was not a nautral enforcer of law and order, but a moral agent respomsible for removing obstacles like poverty, ignorance and poor health that prevented individuals from flourishing.