Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
c c c c c c c
c
] c c
c
c
c
c cc cc
c
c ccc ccc cc
cc
1.cUtilitarianism
2.cReform Act,1832
3.cDemocratic Liberalism
c cc
c
1.c Jeffersonian Democracy
2.c Democratic Liberalism
3.c Progressivism
4.c Social Liberalism
c
c c c c c c c c c c c
c Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition
to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal
responsibility and free will. The conception of liberty is impacted by ideals concerning the social
contract as well as arguments that are concerned with the state of nature. The term Liberty is as
modern as its meaning. It is Spanish in origin, from the name of political party; the ³Liberales´
that early in nineteenth century advocated constitutional government for Spain. Later Liberal was
a term taken over in other countries to designate a government, a party, a policy, an opinion that
favored freedom as opposed to authoritarianism. As a philosophy the concept of liberty does not
falls into the category of closed system of thought, with fixed, unchanging dogmas. Rather may
it be characterized as an attitude of mind toward life and life¶s problems that stresses the values
of freedom for individuals, for minorities, and the nations.
Liberty according to L.T.Hobhouse, ¦
1
According to the French political philosopher Montesquieu, the political liberty of the subject is
a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this
liberty, it is the requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of
another2. Liberty is a beautiful word in any language. Its connotations have always been
appealing, noble, and high-minded. It is hard to find philosophers who inveigh against it, and
even harder to find politicians who advocate its suppression- except perhaps as a temporary thing
and for what they claim is a greater good. The adjective µliberal¶ imputes loftiness of view,
concern with things of the spirit a respect of human decency. Its definition ran the gamut from
³one who wants someone else to support him, to think for him««. To protect him from those
who would impose on him responsibilities,´ to one who ³acts as though he believes that man is
made in the image of god and that the nature, the development and the rise of that god-likeness
are his first duty and only wholly worthy employment´3. Liberty represents what I can do for
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
1
L. T. Hobhouse, 123(New York ,1931).
2
Montesquieu,
!182(New York, 1900).
3
Thomas P Neill,
"
3 (The Bruce Publishing Company, USA, 1953).
myself, free of possibility of legal interference by others. Liberty is the opposite of duty4. The
liberty according to the human person in medieval times was not the same thing as the liberty of
modern times- an absence of exterior restraint. It was rather the positive liberty of fulfillment.
The person was free to choose those means which were themselves morally neither good nor bad
in order to achieve his end in life. Society was thought to have the right and the duty establishing
those conditions which could be conducive to each person¶s attaining his end of salvation, and it
was equipped with sanctions necessary for attaining its purpose of promoting the good life for
everyone. There was a general acceptance in the medieval society that there were objective
norms for the regulation of human conduct, that there were such things as truth and error, right
and wrong, human rights and duties, and these could be established by reason and by revelation.
Liberty implies the obligation by the government to refrain from interference with men¶s
property rights unless specifically requested by their owners to limit them in a certain way for the
prevention of greater evils5.
$
%
255 (Oxford University Press, London, 1964).
5
note 3 at p50.
monarchy, while Locke and Spinoza restricted political rights to property owners. These
theorists' aim, therefore, was to construct a minimal social ethics that all could agree on while
leaving as much room as possible for each to decide for him-or herself what to believe and how
to live. Of course, it is always possible to say that the liberal view of just interaction still involves
a conception of the good life, namely one of maximum equal liberty. But this is a very thin
conception of the good that leaves people as free as possible to make their own choices.c
Rights-based liberalism has two apparent weaknesses: It is not clear where the natural
rights come from, and no principled account of conflicts involving rights is given or seems to be
possible. Utilitarian-based liberalism offers a single solution to both. The principle of utility,
which tells moral agents to do those acts that will produce the greatest amount of utility, is
interpreted by the great liberal utilitarians to mean that one should act to bring about a society in
which individuals enjoy the standard liberal rights enumerated earlier in this entry. The principle
of utility, which tells moral agents to do those acts that will produce the greatest amount of
utility, is interpreted by the great liberal utilitarians to mean that one should act to bring about a
society in which individuals enjoy the standard liberal rights enumerated earlier in this entry.
Mill introduced significant modifications to the liberal theory he inherited from Bentham. One of
these is his extension of the liberty principle, which requires persons to be allowed to pursue
their own good in their own way so long as they do not harm others, to cover the coercive
pressure of public opinion mentioned earlier. Furthermore, the area of conduct falling within this
principle includes what Mill calls experiments in living. People should be encouraged to
experiment (so long as they do not harm others) in order to promote the long-term utility of the
human race.
Kant, the deeply anti-utilitarian and still very influential German philosopher, identifies
human beings' capacity for autonomy as the grounds for claiming the existence of a natural right
to an equal liberty. Autonomy is the capacity to govern oneself by freely imposing rational laws
on the operation of one's natural inclinations. In following one's inclinations even through
rational calculation, one is bound by causal laws operating independently of one's will. One is
free and self-determining only insofar as one's end is rational and self-imposed. One achieves
this in willing principles that are universal and apply to everyone. Kant's significance lies not so
much in his working out the implications of the principle of equal liberty but in his invention of a
new rational ground in autonomy for it. Contemporary liberals who still seek to provide
justifications for preferring liberalism to other social and political schemes are largely either
Kantians or utilitarians, with Kantians for the moment predominating. Post-Kantian idealism,
most elaborately developed by Hegel in Germany but also influential in Britain in the second
half of the nineteenth century through the writings of Thomas Hill Green, Francis Herbert
Bradley, and Bernard Bosanquet, historicizes and socializes the Kantian scheme. The general
idea is that historical forms of society and the reflective philosophies that arise in them are the
result of the struggle of human beings to grasp and actualize the free will inherent in their nature
as rational beings. This struggle culminates in the development of a liberal civil society and a
partially liberal state. A liberal self-organizing civil society in which all persons are responsible
for their own life economically and socially is necessary to develop in all the idea and partial
actualization of their autonomy.
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
6
note 3 at p3.
7
British Parliamentary Speeches, February 28, 1832, Miscellanies, I, 94
Corporation Act of 1835 established local government on an elective basis. The Factories Laws
of 1842 and 1847 regulated the conditions of labor in mines and factories. The great economic
freedom of the period was the establishment of free trade by the repeal, in 1846, of the Corn
Laws. In the field of colonial reform British liberalism took a great step of progress.
cc c c c c c c c c c
c As after 1832 a number of liberal reforms followed, but this time in the interest of the
workers the British liberalism entered the democratic stage. Democracy inspired a new attitude
towards the state. Unlike classical liberalism, which regarded the state as a necessary evil,
democratic liberalism regarded it as a necessary good. Therefore the power of the state was to be
used to promote reforms in the economic order by removing the fear of undeserved misfortune,
the lot of many because of unemployment, sickness, low wages, and old age. That spelled the
doctrine of Laissez Faire. Democratic liberalism manifested itself vigorously in Britain during
the first decade of the twentieth century. On the other hand, the liberal party underwent a great
transformation when it renounced laissez faire, and advocated social legislation. On the other
hand, a new political party appeared, the British Labor party, committed to an even more radical
program of social reform and to socialism as its ultimate goal. Both the parties repudiated the
anti-thesis, stressed by classical liberalism, between the individual and the state and between the
individual and the society. They sought to create a new order in which both state and society, by
giving the individual more security, would also give him more freedom.
After the First World War, additional legislation increased the pace of the forward march
of democratic liberalism in Britain. The suffrage was widely extended by the Reform Bill of
1918, establishing universal, equal suffrage for men and women. A great step was taken to
liberalize the empire when, in 1931, the statute of Westminster made Britain and its Dominions
³equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another´ in any aspect of their domestic and
foreign affairs. As champions of democratic liberalism the labor party irreconcilably opposed to
dictatorship, either by an individual, or by a group, or by a class.
The latest stage of liberalism, the welfare state, was definitely established by the British
after the Second World War. As a result of elections of 1945, the Labor Party came into power
and remained in power until 1951, headed by Clement Attlee, put through social legislation far
more radical than that of the past. It aimed to guarantee the minimum level of subsistence for all,
³from the cradle to the grave.´ As usual in Britain when a liberal advance was made at home, a
like advance was made in the empire. Southern Ireland and Burma were granted independence.
India, Pakistan, and Ceylon were granted Dominion status at these periods. Ghana became the
first Negro colony to attain virtual independence as a Dominion. The admission of non-
Europeans on the basis of equality with whites marked a notable liberalization of the
Commonwealth.
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
9
F.D. Roosevelt,
) 396(Boston, 1946).
10
#
v. #
*
$ 347 U.S. 483.
Independence. Until the twentieth century, however, its accomplishments were largely confined
to America itself. But the two world wars profoundly changed this situation. History thrust
America forward as the most powerful and most determined champion of the democratic way of
life, first against militarism of imperial Germany, and then against totalitarianism dictatorship of
fascism. Since then the hopes of liberals everywhere rest on America as the leader of the free
world in its ceaseless struggle against the totalitarian dictatorship of communism.
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
11
S.P.Aiyar, +
'&
(Democratic Research Service, Bombay, 1985).
now been amply supported by studies in crowd psychology. Sir P. S. Sivaswamy Aiyar pointed
out that one of the great difficulties in non-cooperation and non-violence movements is to
maintain their essential non-violent character and this line of thinking can be found also in the
speeches and writings of Gokhale and of Srinivasa Sastri.
Thirdly, they saw the danger of helpless dependence on foreign assistance. They
welcomed the import of Western skills and knowledge but they warned against unimaginative
dependence on foreign aid and foreign experts. What is important is to develop the initiative of
the people and promote the skills necessary for development. Consider Gokhale's warning in this
direction, echoed after many decades, by Rajagopalachari in the pages of Swarajya and
Sivaswamy Aiyar's plea for technical and professional education.
Finally, all the liberals have shared a common concern for the expansion of education and
opening up opportunities for woman-without watering down standards. Theirs point was no
sentimental flirtation with the Goddess of Learning. They examined the educational needs of the
country; they saw the weakness of a purely "Arts" education compelling people to take
government jobs and making them more dependent than ever on the foreign government. This is
one of the reasons why Sivaswamy Aiyar had emphasized the importance of education in
commerce and mechanical engineering. More than any other liberal, with the exception of
Gokhale, it was from regulated private enterprise to State-red economics; it includes utopianism
of many varied Gandhi, Vinoba, Jayaprakash Narain et al.-a romantic sentimentalism12.
c The near "one party system" which has long dominated the Indian political scene has
given rise to a host of social problems and heightened intolerance of criticism. The threats to
individual freedom are ever present making it necessary for freedom loving individuals to
organise for civil liberties and constantly explore new channels for the expression of critical
thought. In the long perspective of Indian history and tradition concern for the individual and his
rights has been conspicuous by its absence. India can progress on the lines indicated in the
Constitution only through a break with the dead past13.
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
12
S.P.Aiyer,
,
-
(Twelfth Annual Lecture, Harold Laski Institute, 1966).
13
note 11.
]
At the beginning of the twentieth century the outlook for liberalism appeared bright.
Because of these notable advances it was generally assumed that liberalism was destined to
encompass the entire world. Then came the two world wars, both within one generation, 1914-
1945. So great was the destruction of life and property, and so fearful the methods of warfare
that many feared that the progress of mankind had come to an end. Liberalism has contributed
much to the solution of the problem of power as exercised by the state. It has taken to heart lord
Acton¶s famous dictum, ³All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.´
No absolute power is given to anyone in the liberal review. Neither is power exercised without
responsibility to the people, who freely grant or withhold power to govern at periodic elections.
Absolute rule was given a death blow by liberalism when it made opposition to the government a
legitimate, even a necessary function. Opposition is expressed not only by minority political
parties but also by numerous and varied organizations that aim to change the policies of the
government by constitutional methods. This contribution of liberalism to the art of government
has brought stability with progress, has promoted national unity, and has assured the continuity
of the constitutional state.
Liberalism devised a rational method for settling differences between opposing interests.
The liberal spirit has, in modern times, found expression in all of man¶s interests. But nowhere
more so than in the field of government, now extended to include so many of man¶s activities.
The liberal state may be considered as the masterpiece of political man, an institution dedicated
to preserving and enlarging human freedom in all ways. Never until now has the destiny of
mankind been weighed on a political scale. And that scale is the liberal state.
)cc c c c c c
$
%
255 (Oxford University Press, London,
1964).
Xc T.C. Pease and A.S. Robert, '
©
(
232(New York,
1928).
Xc F.D. Roosevelt,
) 396(Boston, 1946).
Xc S.P.Aiyar, +
'&
(Democratic Research
Service, Bombay, 1985).
Xc S.P.Aiyer,
,
-
(Twelfth Annual Lecture, Harold
Laski Institute, 1966).
Xc British Parliamentary Speeches, February 28, 1832, Miscellanies, I, 94