Utilitarian liberals Led by Jeremy Bentham (early 1800s), reconcile tension by devising market-based moral theory each of us shops around, seeking to maximize pleasures and minimize pains by nature hedonists, pleasure-seekers and pain-avoiders Human nature  search for pleasure/happiness and avoid pain/unhappiness Each person has natural/innate interest in promoting own pleasure or happiness No “public interest” apart from “greatest happiness of greatest number” Bentham and disciple James Mill free-market liberals

John Stuart Mill Extended notion beyond economic sphere Free market in goods and services less important than free market in ideas and opinions State should not interfere with expression and dissemination of ideas no matter how unpopular or unorthodox

J.S. Mill, On Liberty (1859) Defense of individual freedom and against paternalism Majority (or state that speaks in its name) has too often been mistaken or misguided Human history sad chronicle of censoring and silencing people with unorthodox, unpopular views Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, and countless others have been silenced to detriment of human progress and happiness New truths, novel views uncomfortable or unwelcome Not sufficient reason for not listening to and considering State has no business restricting expression of ideas and opinions

What about actions? State has role to play in restricting or regulating certain actions, behaviors Which can it legitimately limit or restrict? Private, “self-regarding” actions and public, “other- regarding” acts Self-regarding = affects only person performing it Other-regarding = also affects someone else State has no right to interfere with self-regarding acts Legitimate but limited right to intervene in other- regarding acts Only if an other-regarding act actually harms someone other than person performing it can state regulate, restrict, or outlaw it

Economic actions? To what extent can state legitimately restrict or regulate economic actions and activities? Inheritance My parents leave me a million dollars; yours leave you debts I’m freer to pursue aims than you are to pursue yours, especially if your aim is to be a millionaire Liberal equality (i.e., equality of opportunity) does not characterize relationship Proper role of state Maximize parents’ freedom to dispose of wealth as they see fit? Promote equality of opportunity by providing “level playing field” (e.g., inheritance tax)?

Free market liberals Liberals divided into two competing camps Those who favored letting individuals decide how best to make and dispose of their wealth Favored unrestricted economic competition and laissez faire (“let act”; i.e., free market) “Manchester liberals” believed life was struggle for survival and market best suited to decide outcome “Social Darwinists” claimed to apply Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection to study of human society State should be limited to seeing contracts kept and private property protected Manchester Liberals and Social Darwinists, freedom = freedom to compete and keep fruits of one’s victory over other, unsuccessful competitors

Reform/welfare-state liberals Ideal of quality of opportunity meant playing field must be made more level Some kinds of freedom -- especially economic freedom -- can be restricted in favor of other freedoms and to promote important values and ideals T. H. Green (and other reform-minded liberals) believed Utilitarians, Manchester Liberals, and Social Darwinists wrong view of “human nature” mistaken Human beings not selfish, pleasure-seeking animals, but rational, reflective creatures motivated by noble and generous ideas and ideals Human pleasures and pains mediated by ideas and ideals -- such as justice and fairness Being treated unjustly is a source of pain to morally sensitive and reflective human being Each of us harbors a vision of an ideal or better self, a picture of the kind of person we would like to be More expansive notion of self  expansive notion of self-interest – and different view of freedom and role of state in promoting and sustaining freedom

Higher form of freedom For Green (Hobhouse in England, John Dewey in U.S.), freedom is not liberty to do anything one pleases (so long as it does not interfere with other people’s freedom to do as they please) Freedom = opportunity for our ideal or higher self to be realized (made real); freedom of our ideal or higher self to promote ideals and goals in a community consisting of other similarly situated higher selves True liberty or freedom, then, requires our ideal or higher self be free of temptations to which our lower self too often succumbs – including temptation to take advantage of, or to not care about, those less fortunate than ourselves Laws that smooth social relations and restrict all-out competition are aids to true liberty, not restrictions on our rights or our freedom These laws restrict our lower selves even as they encourage our higher selves to realize our nobler, more just and generous ideals

Liberalism and Socialism Similar sentiment invoked by socialists in support of schemes for social reform Distinction between reform or welfare-state liberalism and socialism Socialism does not seek to reform capitalism but to replace it with system of publicly-owned enterprises Reform/welfare-state liberalism presupposes and takes for granted capitalist system From perspective of welfare-state liberal, role of state includes regulating competition and alleviating social ills and individual injuries wrought by competitive capitalist society

Otto Von Bismarck Grandfather of modern welfare state neither socialist nor liberal Prussian militarist and ardently antisocialist “Iron Chancellor” united Germany (in late 19th century), believed welfare state best way to oppose socialism State-sponsored system of taxing employers and employees to support ill, injured, and unemployed workers German state increases power and prestige while stealing thunder from socialists Welfare state supplied social safety net in unpredictably up-and-down cyclical capitalist economy

Welfare state in U.S. Rough-and-ready liberalism of Manchester school advocated by proponents of “rugged individualism” such as Herbert Hoover Isolated individuals no match for Great Depression (1930s) Workers lost jobs, farmers lost farms, and financiers lost fortunes No one seemed safe from ravages of competitive capitalist system gone haywire

F.D.R. During Great Depression, welfare-state liberalism came into its own President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed through programs unthinkable a few years earlier Although some critics cried “socialism,” F.D.R. was no socialist A reform-minded welfare-state liberal who had tried to save capitalism from its own excesses

1950s-1980s Welfare state and its supporting ideology, liberalism, continued to flourish into 1960s (presidencies of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson) In 1970s -- and even more in 1980s, during the Reagan administration -- ideology of welfare-state liberalism criticized by those who called themselves conservatives American conservatives like Reagan borrowed heavily from economic liberalism of older nineteenth century variety (i.e., Manchester Liberalism)

Libertarians Criticize contemporary conservatives for not being true to economic principles of Manchester Liberalism and ethical principles of J.S. Mill Modern libertarians (e.g., Rothbard, Friedman, and Nozick) want government out of boardroom and bedroom (i.e., out of economy and moral domain) The state has no business “interfering” in any economic transaction, including selling of sex, drugs, or any other commodity or service Almost any decision a private moral decision made on basis of self- interest, therefore best left to individuals operating in free market The state should be minimal in scope and morally neutral in operations; should not try to regulate economy or reform citizens

Liberalisms Liberal tradition is complex and varied Complexity, variety, and variability accounts for much of the modern confusion over what liberalism is and what liberals believe Much the same can be said about what conservatism is and what conservatives believe and advocate

Key terms natural or unalienable rights tyranny of the majority negative and positive liberty neoclassical liberalism welfare liberalism communitarianism religious conformity liberal democracy feudalism Utilitarianism Social Darwinism affirmative action Rawls’ notion of justice

Discussion/essay questions If all Liberals want to promote individual liberty, how can we then explain the division of Liberalism into two competing groups? When did this division begin, and why does it persist today? Some say that the core of Liberalism is its commitment to equality of opportunity in a competitive society. Do you agree? Explain your position, and also indicate why equal opportunity is so troublesome for liberals today. What is the point of the “one very simple principle” J.S. Mill proposes in On Liberty? How does Mill defend this principle, and do you find his defense satisfactory? Why or why not? Compare and contrast the Utilitarian and Reform Liberal conceptions of human nature. Which view is the more accurate representation? What school of Liberalism do you find most compelling – Free Market Liberalism (Manchester Liberalism, Utilitarianism, Social Darwinism, Neoclassical/Libertarian) or Reform/Welfare Liberalism – and why? How does it fit with Liberal Democracy?