An evaluation of classical liberalism.

Locke's second contribution lays in his work on the “state of nature” the label he gives to a pre societal sate. Locke proposes that in the state of nature “people coexisted in relative peace.” Humans gain property via labor and resources, their most prominent concern in the state of nature is the difficulty that there is no impartiality and subsequently disputes are not easily resolved. From this assertion he concludes that humanity is inherently good and “capable of coexistence in liberty.”

Thirdly, Locke believed that it is only via popular consent that a state can claim to be legitimate. This leads him to state that “government's in breach of the contract between the state and the citizens (in which they agree to be under its authority) gives the people the right of revolution.“

His finally and for him the most important of his contributions was the link he established between personal liberty and its dependency upon private property. He states that those with property must have that property secured in law. This idea means property is always protected and only legitimate enterprise can lead to the acquisition of property. The way he defines property is significant here. Property to Locke include personal labor, this means that “ownership is an intimate act of creation” Property for Locke includes religious beliefs, political ideas, and one's self to an almost absolute degree.

Locke’s contribution to liberalism can be seen both in his time and today. He was central to the American Revolution due to his work on consent. His ideas are still played out around the world today most notable the notion of natural rights present in the US constitution   “I hold these truths to be self evident” comes directly from the Lockean principle of natural rights.  

The French revolution was perhaps the most significant event in the realization of liberalism throughout the world. Particularly relevant to our discussion deontological liberalism is “the declaration of the rights of man” this event set the foundation of natural rights within the constitution of a nation was hugely significant to the development of liberalism in later years especially in the USA.

Challenges from both within and outside the liberal spectrum are leveled against natural rights and the work of Locke and his advocates.  

Bentham a Liberal utilitarian sees natural rights as imprecise “nonsense upon stilts” as opposed to real law that is the product of a rational and legal process. More importantly natural rights are socially divisive. As one persons right to liberty, property etc may conflict another persons right to these things leading to conflict, conflict that Bentham believe will eventually lead to chaos.

For Marx the language of natural rights emphasizes separation and isolation and is merely an ideological tool to sustain ruling class domination. He is especially critical of the Natural rights that identify the right to own property.

Teleological liberals do not believe in natural rights. They believe moral rights arise whenever “the operation of a posited moral principle justifies the protection of recognized interests”. Utilitarianism is by far the most prominent example of this type of liberalism. It is the view that the liberal state exists to assure the maximization of utility, "a policy or decision is right not independently of its effect on social welfare but precisely because of it” This type of physiological hedonism for Bentham defines human nature. He writes that "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure… They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it".  From this he concludes that what is morally right and wrong is defined by and individuals self interest “A thing is said to promote the interest of an individual, or be for the interest of an individual, when it tends to add to the sum total of his pleasures; or, what comes to the same thing, to diminish the sun total of his pain”

Bentham suggest a system called Hedonistic Calculus in order to measure weather an act is worth taking according the following process

“1. Start with the individual most affected

2. Quantify the immediate pleasure

3. Quantify the immediate pain

4. Quantify the secondary pleasure/pain.

5. Grand total for that individual

6. Repeat steps 1 - 5 for all affected

7. Repeat for every possible alternative act”   If the sun pleasure outweighs the sum pain then the act should be taken. The idea of measuring happiness is highly contested. Even if we concede that it is tenable as an idea then actually undertaking the above 7 steps would prove so time consuming that one would never act.

Bentham views human nature as basically the same.

In “Law, Liberty and Government” we see Bentham discuss freedom. He believes in a negative definition of the term, in other words he sees freedom as consisting of the “the absence of restraint" and therefore individual are free when they are not impeded by others. Although Bentham doesn’t see any self evident value in liberalism he values it due to its ability to provide “the greatest happiness good for the greatest number” Liberalism here is clearly a means to a higher end.  

Bentham logically moves to claim the state should be as minimal as possible whilst maximizing pleasure and reducing pain of its citizens. Law restricts individual freedom and is therefore a cause of pain to those how are restricted. He asserts that law is necessary as the sum pain caused to those restricted is less than the sum pleasure gained by those how are not violated. Law is therefore a necessary evil that is essential to insured social order and good government which in turn is central to insuring human happiness.

John Stewart Mill is perhaps the most famous of all liberals. He was raised by his father and Bentham as a strict utilitarian. Mill adopted this ideology and became one of its strongest advocates. Mill wasn’t totally satisfied by Bentham’s work. Mill was an advocate of intellectual toleration. He advocated the French position with respect to self-rule believing that the creation of “an ethical sphere of privacy”, in other words individual autonomy from both the state and the majority. The notion of toleration and privacy are the key points of differences between Mill and his utilitarian predecessor Bentham. Mill looked critically at Bentham’s work. He altered the “greatest happiness” maxim itself under strong influence from the German liberal tradition to include the quality of happiness as well as quantity in judging utility placing higher value upon self-realization ranking than other things. Mill states “...some kinds [Mill's emphasis] of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone”.

His works seem to agree that, in most instances, people, either alone or in voluntary associations, make decisions concerning themselves better than the government. Mill therefore advocated limiting the state.

Mill considers that individual liberty is justifiably restricted according to his harm principle. The harm principle, mill states is the idea that a persons liberty may be restricted only in order to prevent harm that the person’s actions may cause to others.

“Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” 

Following on this principle, the government may limit the freedom of any individual or group if their actions are likely to harm any other part of society. Government prohibitions against murder, theft, rape, and speeding are all examples of this principle. The harm principle is probably the only liberty limiting principle that is non controversial and widely accepted.

Utilitarianism was stimulated by the industrial revolution and became hugely influential in the UK during this period.

Maurice Cowling when talking of John Stuart Mill states that he treats "his assertions as if they have scientific authority, as if they have been demonstrated, when they have not been at all. ... Mill's fundamental principles have neither proof nor philosophical authority, but are commitments to action, the outcome of assertions to claim knowledge of the nature of the world and the direction men's duty ought to take within it: ... it is difficult to avoid feeling that much of what we will characterize as his arrogance is connected with want of clarity at this point."

Williams believes that when an individual takes an action he doesn’t know the result that action with cause until it has created it. In other words you cannot predict weather your actions will created happiness or pain until you have experienced either the happiness or the pain. This is because one individual can have an effect upon another individuals action that was previously unpredictable this is made clear in Williams Jack and George example.  

Mill was an empiricist and as such believed in no innate facts instead he contended that only thorough experiences can we gain knowledge. But there is no real evidence to support the claim in the greatest happiness of the greatest number is what defines morality. It is just as much a leap of faith as the belief in natural rights he was so eager to criticize.

 The problem for Liberalism as a means to the end of greater social happiness is that if another system of government was to arise which provided a greater level of happiness liberalism would cease to be of any use to this group. For Unitarian liberals, Utilitarianism is the dominant part.

Although unified under the guise of individual liberty, the different reasons given by both the Deontological and teleological schools are absolutely irreconcilable. Liberalism is largely meaningless due to the fact that it refers to such a broad and contradictory ideological group. Perhaps more useful would be two separate words and definitions to refer to these very different groups.

---