To what extent do liberals have a common view on human nature?
Argument/thread = Classical liberals believe that humans are naturally rational and prefer to pursue their enlightened
self-interest. This shows a fundamentally optimistic view of human nature. Although modern liberals accept this view, they
(+ CL Mill) stress that these 'natural' qualities are potential features of human nature and can only develop under certain
conditions which must be created, such as education and equal rights and opportunities for all. Additionally, individuals
crave freedom but also understand that they have obligations to help others less fortunate. Therefore, liberals disagree
on how human nature is best developed, the extent over how the state/society should respond to these human qualities &
the balance of selfishness and altruism in people. But they agree fundamentally that humans are naturally individual,
rational and altruistic beings deserving of equality/social justice. In turn all liberals respect individual liberty, favour a
meritocratic society and a market economy, and place paramount importance on education, due to their common view of
human nature. They have a positive take on human nature, in contrast to conservatives, and their belief in self-interest
sets them apart from socialists.
Agree/disagree:
Paragraph #1 Believe in varying degrees of self-interest/selfishness vs altruism individuals have. Classical liberals
- Degree of believe this to a greater extent and: believe individuals are completely self-interested, pursuing their own
selfishness interests above all else with no concern for the welfare of others. This view originated from the
Enlightenment - a movement away from superstition, ignorance + emotion, and towards rationality,
reason + logic. Their view reflects CL's emphasis in egotistical individualism and belief individuals should
be left free to pursue their own goals without interference from the state e.g. Locke's natural right to
possess property (which stems from the desire to pursue one's own interests and achieve personal
satisfaction). However, while classical liberal John Stuart Mill believed that individuals are motivated by
self-interest, he also recognized the importance of social connections and the pursuit of collective
interests. He argued that individuals should have the freedom to pursue their own interests and opinions
as long as they do not harm others, but also emphasised the importance of collective action and the
pursuit of common goals like social welfare or the advancement of knowledge. This is more in line with
modern liberals' belief that even though individuals are self interested, they also have a natural desire
to help others and are capable of altruistic behaviour/concern for the welfare of others - when properly
incentivized, such as being fostered by government policies that promote social welfare and reduce
inequality, which benefits society as a whole. Especially Rawls who claimed that behind a veil of
ignorance - without knowledge of one’s current circumstance and therefore not knowing which
opportunities one would have access to - all people would acknowledge that opportunities are not
equally accessible to all. This would cause humans to feel sympathy for those with less opportunities
than themselves, meaning they would not object to sacrificing some of their success to others. Contrasts
classical liberals’ view that due to their unbridled self-interest, humans would keep all of their success to
themselves, without any concern for those with less. Therefore although they agree humans can be
social & collective, they disagree in how positive (altruistic) or negative (self interest) they see human
nature as.
Paragraph #2 The aforementioned argument fails to acknowledge that all liberals share a positive outlook of human
- Positive nature e.g. Locke and Mill echoed the Enlightenment view of human nature which challenged the
view mediaeval interpretation of it being tied to original sin & deeply flawed / Classical liberals see
self-reliance, a result of self-interest, as a strength, whilst modern liberals perceive concern for others to
be a noble trait. All liberals believe humans are rational creatures, naturally favouring their own interests.
Therefore, conflict can be resolved by debate, reducing the need for force/bloodshed. And humans are
naturally capable of defining and pursuing their best interests, so can be trusted with personal liberty to
go about their lives as individuals (rather than as members of society pursuing a collective goal, like
socialism). Consequently, they can be trusted e.g. with education (collective agreement) - since as they
become more knowledgeable, they improve their own lives through better rationality / decision-making,
and advance the world. This is quite a progressive view. Two liberals who held greatly opposing beliefs
on the role of the state in the economy, Rawls and John Stuart Mill, both recognised the importance of
education as essential to further developmental individualism/altruism & social responsibility. Overall,
this common view on human nature leads to liberals' shared beliefs in liberty, individualism, education
and progress.
Paragraph #3 All liberals believe in foundational equality, the notion that all are born of the same moral worth and
- Humans are 'natural' rights (Locke) that cannot be taken away. Wollstonecraft & Friedan advocated the extension
naturally of Locke's initial ideas to women who they believed also have natural rights like men so should be
unequal equal.
But they also admit that no two people are the same. All people have different characteristics and
talents, creating a dynamic and diverse society of many innately different people. This leads to liberals’
shared support of individualism, which dictates that people should act according to their own unique
talents rather than inclining to the collective will. It also stems from a belief in meritocracy, a society in
, which all outcomes reflect one’s ability and willingness to work, regardless of one’s social status. Such a
society is intended to produce great inequalities, with the able and willing succeeding while the unable
and unwilling fail, but all liberals agree that, to recognise natural talent and incentivise hard work,
outcomes should be unequal. Whilst classical and modern liberals have always disagreed on whether
this meritocratic society exists in practice, they all agree on its principle due to their common view on the
natural inequalities of humans.
Other Disagree over if individual qualities of humans innate or should be developed = Classical liberals
paragraph believe that humans are naturally rational and it's an innate quality that humans are born with. They
ideas argue for negative liberty - as individuals are capable of making decisions in their own self-interests, so
want limited state interference as this violates an individual's natural rights. Wollstonecraft argued that
women shouldn't be stopped from receiving formal education, so that they could also release their innate
powers of reason. However, modern liberals say that human nature isn't innate and that these qualities
must be nurtured in order to be fully realised - so the state needs to help people to develop their
individualism (developmental individualism - individual freedom is linked to human flourishing). For
example, Friedan argued that women were not able to fully develop their individuality because of
societal expectations and limitations on their opportunities for education or employment, which the state
should remove to provide equal opportunities. Similarly, Rawls accepted their would be inequality but
argued society should be structured to provide equal opportunities for individuals to develop. Even some
classical liberals started to raise this as an issue. Wollstonecraft believed that the state needed to
intervene to make education available to both men and women, and Mill’s more modern liberal concept
of 'enabled individuality' as he believed that individuals had the potential to become their best selves but
require the conditions and opportunities to do so.
Disagree over how human nature informs what type of economy is best: Classical liberals believe
that humans are self-interested and competitive by nature, which leads them to believe that individuals
are best suited to make economic decisions for themselves, without the interference of the state. This
belief in individualism is reflected in their economic policies, which favour minimal state intervention in
the economy and support laissez-faire policies such as deregulation and privatisation. They argue that
these policies will ultimately lead to the greatest prosperity for society as a whole, by allowing individuals
and businesses to pursue their own self interests without interference from the state. However, modern
liberals have a more nuanced view of human nature. They recognize that human nature is more
complex, they are not just motivated by self-interest, profit and competition, but also are social beings
who have a desire to cooperate for the common good and empathy for others. And human nature is
malleable and can be improved through the right social, economic, and political structures. Therefore,
they believe the state should create an environment that nurtures these positive qualities in individuals.
For example through policies (aka progressive taxation or social welfare programs) that aim to reduce
inequality, promote education, social welfare and provide social safety nets - creating a more equitable
society that benefits everyone.
To what extent do liberals agree/disagree on the state?
Argument/thread = There is agreement between liberals that: the state should exist; the nature of it as being necessary
for supporting individual freedom, protecting 'natural rights' & promoting individual liberty; state serves the people it
governs by consent; and united in fear of power becoming too concentrated so favour separation of powers. However,
they differ mainly on: the extent of the state’s power, particularly the role and levels of intervention in society and
economy; and how the state should best serve the people. Therefore, while there is disagreement on the size of the state
and the extent of the role it should play in individuals’ lives - this is because of political/economic context which changes
(partially due to the emergence of Socialism as a political force and the impact of laissez-faire economic liberalism on the
poor). Throughout, liberals agree on the necessity of a limited state, the basic principles, and their view that the state can
and should serve and benefit its citizens (mechanistic theory - govt created to serve the individual). So overall, there is
more agreement.
● Unity in terms of goals, as both strands believe in the necessity of a limited state (only permitted to provide
laws for some aspects of government, such as security) with separation of powers where a government is
created and authorised by the people it governs, rather than imposed upon them by a monarch/ruling elite - an
idea brought about during the Enlightenment. Liberalism rejects the Hobbesian notion that people were subjects
of the state, with an obligation to obey. Also agree the state is a potential problem given its capacity to threaten
the rights and individualism of the people being governed.
● Divide has been the state's role in the economy/society & extent of the size/how limited the state should be.
Early classical liberals believe in the most limited, non-interventionist, 'night watchman' state, controlled by a
government based on representative democracy. Whereas, modern liberals advocate an interventionist, enabling
state - as state intervention can be justified on the grounds of social justice, equality and social welfare - and the
power of the state should be controlled by constitutional rules and robust democracy.
