liberalism Flashcards
(9 cards)
human nature
p1: INDIVIDUALISM- classical liberlais believe in egoistical individualism and that we are ruthlessley self interested and should be able to pursue the maximisation of our own welafare, hence free market economy was the best. modern liberals also saw individuals as self interested but developnental individualism highlighted how we also have regard for others, hence we accepted a role of the state in hand up. BOTH still accept the need for some material gratification, hence equal oppoirtunity not outcome.
p2: the STATE- classical liberals believe that the state distorts human nature, it prevnets us from thinking for ourselves and pursuing rationality which only blunts us. should have a limited role and held accountable by the social contract. also dampens our human nature due to limited freedoms. modern liberals like rawls believed the state would help us pursue rationality as not everyone had the capaicty to do so due to being born into innate disadvanatges, state needed to help us achieve humn nature, esp through education according to mill. also th green. BUT similar as both see states role as limited e.g. hand up
p3: WOMEN- modern liberals like wollestonecraft argued for no difference in the rationality between men and women so they should not be discriminated against, they should be viewed as of equal value to men. similarly, freidan argued that there shouldn’t be different roles for men and women. however differed as wollestonecraft believed it didn’t matter that men and women had diff roles in society e.g. homemakers, becasueequal ratojnality, whereas freidan saw a more nterventionist role so state needed to ensure equal opportunities. human nature as equal so basis for female equality
the state
p1: THE ECONOMY- classical liberals believed the state shuld not have a role in the economy, it needed to be free market because here, individuals maxismie welafre and make rational decisions which is their human nature. any inequality was the product of meritocracy as we are bron with equal rights. modern liberals disagree and believe we’re not born equal as we’re shaped y experiences and some have disadvnatges. this means the state muts get involved to help overcome this and people would choose this if they dodn’t knwo their soical position. BOTH still have view on limited state in economy to not foster dependcey.
p2: SOCIETY- threat to freedom they both sought for a limited role of the state because individuals in society had their own freedoms which it threatened. eg. locke’s social contract and the basis for revolution, mill- who was classical and modern, harm principle i.e. only invoved when needed. but lock understood need for state in law and order. BUT other modern liberals see it as necessary for freedom
p3: WOMEN-classical liberals saw no need for state to phsycially ensure women and men had equal role,s only to stop the discrimination. wollstonecraft believed due to rationality being equal, the differing roles didn’t make women inferior so shouldn’t have to change. freidan disagreed and believd in a more active role of the state for ensuring men and women have equal opportunities in the workplace etc and enforced through law. only stressed a role in education
society
p1: EQUALITY- classical liberals saw ineqaulity in society as the product of meritocracy and the differing roles and repsonsibilities. everyone is born equal so rising and falling is due to how hard one subsequently works. modern liberals disagreed and believed inequality was not just because individuals in society had innate disadavnatges depending on their social status.
p2: INDIVIDUALISM- classical liberals believe in egositical indiviudalism so no such thing as society, instead atomistic individuals who only have regard for their own self interest. completely contradict the idea of society as existing. modern liberals believe in developmental individualism and so individuals have more regard for others in society, they do seek material gratification but do also undertand importance of helping others. BUT both still see individual as coming first, primacy of the individual, with modern liberals believeng society comes 2nd
p3: STATE- classical liberals believe that the state should not get involved in society unless actions are other regarding, very limited role to uphold freedoms and prevent them being impinged. society needs to give the satte consent to govern through social contract and if this is not obtained, they can revolt.
modern liberals belive that the state should have more of a role in society through helping individuals and thus society flourish and reach its best potential which the state would facilitate. but, BOTH see state as vital inc locke
the economy
p1: THE STATE/HUMAN NATURE- classical liberals believe that the state cannot get involved on the economy, it has to be a free market mechanism as inspired by adam smith because humans are rational and this is what the economy in free market system maximises so upholds freedoms and liberties. due to bleive in individualism they have no regard for others. Modern liberals believe the state should also be limited to giving hand uo not hand up which meant ensuring equality of opoortunity rather tahn outcome, but still was more interventionist. rawls’ veil of ignorance. society would support helping those less fortnate due to developmental egosim
p2: EQUALITY- classical liberals believed that economic inequality was the product of meritocracy so was just, derived from hard work and did not need inetrvention. modern liberals believed inequality in the economy was due to unequal nature from innate disadvantges in society which had nothing to do with how hard one worked.
p3: WOMEN- wolestoncraft and classical liberlas did not see it as essential for women to be eonomically active but instead they deserved the chance for equal opportunities for schooling because that created inferior rationality and unfairly disadvantged women. freidan argue a step further believeing not only should women be entitled to education, also to a job and to have equal such opportunities with that of men. the state had to get involved to ejsure this so modern liberals more supportive of the female role in economy. BUT classical still accepted the fact that women could fucntion in the economy due to being rational.
individualism
p1: THE ECONOMY- classical liberals believed in egoistical individualism which emphasised self interest and material gratification so indiviudals would only acceot the free market economic system which allows them to pursue this drive. modern liberals disagreed and instead believed in developmental individualism so individuals in society have regard for others and whilst being self seeking, undertsood that economic help for the poor to reduce inequality of opportunity was necessary.
p2: STATE- classical liberals believed that the state was a threat to the rimacy of the idnivudal because it impinged upon freedoms. it threatened individual liberty and thus had to be limited via a social contract or harm principle. modern liberals saw it less as a threat to indiviual liberty and more as a means for it because it gave the equality needed to excercise rationality and experience freedom of choice. negative v poistive liberty.
p3: EQUALITY- the inequality indvidualism led to was just classical liberals argue inequality is the product of meritocracy and so individuals should be left alone because it leads to the most efficnet and productive workforce. they believe that it is detemrined by indivudal efforts only so we can be self sufficent. modern liberals disagree and believe that inequality is due to innate disadvanatges aa=nd so to uphold primacy of the indiviudal means to overcome this inequality. not product of indivudal effort but societal disadvanatges e.g lack of educational opportunities
freedom/liberty
p1: TYPE: classical liberals believe that freedom is defined in negative terms so freedom from the state because they believe t threatens our natural rights of life liberty and estate. this is why the state needs to be limited via locke’s social contract and mills harm pricniple. modern liberals believe in poistive freedoms which means freedpom to. this is because they believe that whilst individuals are all born rational and with rights, not everyone has teh capaicty to excercise them so in order to overcome innate disadvanatges preventing it, there needed to be an involved state. however, classical still see importance of state
p2: ECONOMY- classical liberals believe in egostical individualism and so freedom menat to puruse this rationality and self inerst which was only achieved in a completely free market where the invisible hand prevailed. would ensure freedm as indiiduals could seek their material gratification. modern liberals believed in developmental individualism so people had regard for others who were less fortunate. the state needed to get involved in the economy and people would not see this as an invasion of their liberty. BUT they do still see the state’s role in the economy as limited
p3: WOMEN- classical liberals beliegd that in order to be truly free, women had to have the same status as men in the sense of equally recognised as rational. they had to do this by ensuring women had access to eductaion because that was key factor in development but women didn’t need different roles than men. modern iberals like freidan also agreed that women needed euqality to be free but took it further to mean the same roles as men in society too, not just freedom from discrimnation for their differning roles. more interventionist
rationality
p1: STATE- modern liberals believed that all humans were rational and thus the state needed only a limited role in law and order. individuals were capapble of making their own decisions due to this human nature and so the state had to be limited via the social contract so as to not become more invoved which they aregued reduced rationality. modernn thinkers such as mill who was transitional, also agreed with the fact that all were bron rational but argued that exoerience such as education had a great impact and thus the state needed to ensure provision of education to allow everyone to access the same ability to pursue rationality
p2: ECONOMY- classical liberals believed that we are rational and individuals are only interested in pursuing their self interest. this meant that the free market was the best economic system and should be pursued because we could maximise our welfare and recieve material gratification through purusing rationality. modern liberals instead argue that not all indivudlas can pursue rationality due to innate disadvanatges so the state needed to get involved to enable us toexcercise it through equality of opportunity.
p3: WOMEN-classical and modern liberals both argue that women an men are equally as rationla so should not be treated as inferior. however, modern liberals believed this meant equal roles in society and the economy whereas classical liberals saw less of a state inteventionist role and more to overocming discrimination in the fact women have diff roles, which shouldn’ make them any more inferior.
justice
p1: EQUALITY- classical liberals believe that the inequality in soicety is just because it is product of meritcoracy i.e. how hard people work and they argue this because they believe all indivudals are bron rational and with teh same inalienable rights and so have the same ability to rise or fall. modern liberals believe inequality is unjust because people are faced with disadvanatges from being in certain societal positions. people instead need equality of opportinity through the state’s hand up.
p2: WOMEN- justice would only be achieved when men and women are seen as equally rational and not degraded or seen as inferior for having diff roles in society according to classical. modern believe justice means equal roles in society so the same ability to be economically active
p3- STATE ENFORCEMENT- classical liberals believed that teh state was needed to enforce justice as where there is no law there is no liberty, however this was the only role that the state was limited to, in terms of involvement. modern liberals believe that the stae should also be limited in its enforcement of justice and should only get involved when people’s actions are other regarding. even if they inflcit harm ont themselves it should not be oenalised and should be seen as lawful, only when those actions affect others should it be interfered with.
liberal democracy
p1: STATE- classical liberals believed that the state was a threat to liberty and freedom and this meant that there was need for the social contract and harm principle to limit its power. the former was especially important as it agve the consent to govern so ensured legitemate authority. modern liberals were also wary of the sate and saw the need to limit its influence. this meant that they only offered a state with a hand up, not a hand out, for equality of opportunity to prevnet a dependncy on the state which could reduce oir freedoms further and lead to potential coercion.
p2: SOCIETY- classical liberals did not believe all individuals in society should have the sufferage and so whilst they did believe in frequent elections, thinkers like mill, locke and wollenstonecraft argued for this to be excercised by a demorcatic elite to orevent dictatorhsip of the proletariet. isntead of popular democracy, this would prevent the interllectually inferior working class from voting. Modern liberals believed that the free and fair electosn would only give democratic legiemacy if there was universal sufferage and they argued human rationality to justify doing so. this included women having the vote-freidan.
p3: HUMAN NATURE- democracy in the form of a state purusiing society’s interests went against their idnividualistic and self interested nature as they had to purusue the collective. this is the reaosning behind their view of limited state, forced others values onto them. therefore elections to choose govts actually wnet against their own human nature. this differed from the modern liberals who instead argued for developmental individualism so they had regard for others, hence purusiing a collective goal for society by teh elected govts was not against their human nature, aand although teh govts role was still limited, it did not contradict human nature
