To what extent do modern and classical liberals agree over the nature of equality? You must
use appropriate thinkers you have studied to support your answer. (24)
Classical and modern liberals agree to a large extent over the nature of equality. Equality is
what is considered needed for individual freedom to be achieved, as well as fair justice which is
needed to uphold everyone's rights to maintain equality. Liberals think that everyone is equal,
but they disagree on how equality is achieved. Classical liberals such as John Locke believe
that everyone is naturally equal, whereas modern liberals such as Betty Freidan believe that
equality must be developed. Good introduction.
There are many similarities between classical and modern liberals over the nature of equality.
All liberals are optimistic about the capacity for human achievement and self improvement, and
see humans as equal individuals. Liberalism was created to replace hereditary privilege and the
divine right of kings, so they believe that humans are rational without monarchy and society
should be based upon reason, not religion or tradition- they shouldn’t be controlled by these
people as they are of equal value to them. All liberals agree on the Enlightenment view on
humans, which believes great progress could come from radical thinking. A believer of this view,
Mary Wollestonecraft, wrote in her book, A Vindication on the rights of women (1792), that the
Englightenment’s views should apply to everyone, including women, as they are all equal
beings who are just as capable as men. Women were rarely allowed land ownership,
employment or the right to vote, which she viewed as very unfair, saying that ‘such
arrangements are not conditions where reason and progress may prosper’. Another view which
all liberals agree over is that all human actions should be tolerated- classical liberal, John Stuart
Mill, was a firm believer of this and wrote in his book On Liberty (1859) about this ‘harm
principle’, meaning that everyone’s actions should be tolerated unless they are physically
harmful to others or ‘other regarding’. He states that humans are never the ‘finished article’ and
require tolerance and equal justice in order to develop their individualism. Overall, both modern
and classical liberals agree to a certain extent over the nature of equality, as they are both
optimistic about human nature and believe that they are equal and individual beings who are
driven upon reason and rationality.
However, there are two major differences between classical and modern liberals over the nature
of equality. One which is whether equality is natural or must be developed. Classical liberals
believe that equality is natural as any human is able to shape their own destiny, no matter the
conditions. An example of this comes from John Locke’s book Two Treatises (1690), in which
he talks about his view of a “natural society” which was what existed before the state’s
existence, in which everyone had philosophical or ‘natural rights’, which are inalienable and
included “life, liberty and property”. On the other hand, modern liberals believe that equality
must be developed, and that there needs to be equality of opportunity, as well as legal equality.
An example of this comes from Betty Freidan’s book, The Feminine Mystique (1963) in which
she believed that ‘cultural conditioning’ was causing inequality between men and women. She
argued that illiberal attitudes, rather than human nature, condemned women to
underachievement. She contested that these attitudes came from ‘cultural channels’ such as
schools, religion, the media and mainstream literature. These channels of cultural conditioning
was what she argued was causing social inequality, and there needed to be change in order for
women to achieve equality. T.H. Green argued that socio-economic forces beyond people’s
control would make it impossible to seek self-determination and self-realisation and would
restrict individual liberty. As a result, modern liberals argued that social equality, as well as legal
equality, was required for individuals to fulfill their potential. This approach of helping others to
help themselves is known as positive freedom- individuals that are left alone are inhibited, so
they need enabling in order to be free, in terms of education and healthcare, which leads on to
