You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson examines the five named liberal thinkers prescribed by the Edexcel specification: John Locke, Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls and Betty Friedan. The 24-mark essay requires you to deploy these thinkers as evidence, so it is not enough to know who they are — you must be able to state precisely what each argued, situate them in the classical or modern strand, and use the agreements and disagreements among them to build sustained argument. This lesson takes each thinker in turn and then draws out the tensions that examiners most often test.
A word on how to use thinkers well before we begin. The examination does not reward name-dropping; it rewards thinkers used as evidence in an argument. A weak answer mentions Locke and Rawls in passing; a strong answer sets Locke's defence of property against Rawls's difference principle to illuminate the liberal debate about the state. You should therefore learn each thinker not as an isolated biography but as a position that can be paired with, or opposed to, the others. The two most productive pairings are Locke against Rawls (on the state, property and redistribution, the heart of the classical–modern divide) and Wollstonecraft alongside Friedan (on the liberal-feminist application of equality, across two centuries). Mill is the indispensable bridge between the strands. Keep these relationships in mind as you read, because they, far more than the isolated facts, are what the higher mark bands reward.
Locke is the foundational classical liberal, writing chiefly in his Two Treatises of Government (1689).
Natural rights. Locke argued that individuals possess inherent rights to life, liberty and property which exist in a "state of nature", prior to and independent of any government. Because these rights are natural rather than granted by the state, the state has no authority to violate them.
The state of nature. Locke's starting point is a "state of nature" — a hypothetical condition before government — in which individuals are free and equal and governed by a law of nature, discoverable by reason, that forbids them to harm one another's life, liberty or possessions. Importantly, Locke's state of nature is not the war of all against all that Hobbes imagined; it is tolerably peaceful, but it suffers from "inconveniences": there is no settled, known law, no impartial judge and no reliable power to enforce the law of nature, so disputes cannot be fairly resolved and rights remain insecure. This more optimistic view of human nature is characteristically liberal and explains why Locke's state is so much more limited than Hobbes's.
Social contract and government by consent. Because of these inconveniences, rational individuals agree to a social contract, establishing a government whose authority derives from their consent and whose purpose is to protect their rights. Government is thus a trust, not a master. The consent at the heart of the contract is what makes government legitimate: authority is not imposed from above by God or conquest but arises from the agreement of free individuals to be governed for their own good. Because the contract is entered into for a specific purpose — the better protection of natural rights — government that fails that purpose forfeits its authority, which is the basis of Locke's right of resistance.
Limited government and the right of resistance. Because the state exists only to protect natural rights, its powers are strictly limited. If a government breaks its trust and turns tyrannical, the people retain the right to resist and replace it — a revolutionary implication that influenced later constitutional thought.
Toleration. In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) Locke defended religious toleration and a separation between the proper spheres of church and state, on the ground that genuine belief cannot be coerced. He held that the state's business is the protection of "civil interests" — life, liberty and property — and not the salvation of souls, which is a matter for the individual conscience.
Limited, not absolute, government. Locke wrote in conscious opposition to defenders of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. Against the idea that subjects owe unconditional obedience to a sovereign, he insisted that political authority is conditional and purpose-bound: it exists for the good of the governed and is forfeited when it works against them. He also favoured a separation between the legislative and executive powers, anticipating the later liberal doctrine of the separation of powers, on the ground that those who make the laws should not also be the ones who enforce them, lest they exempt themselves.
Significance. Locke established the core architecture of classical liberalism — natural rights, consent, limited government — and his ideas shaped the constitutional settlements of the modern liberal-democratic world, leaving a clear imprint on the language of inalienable rights and government by consent. He defines one pole of the liberal tradition: the minimal state protecting pre-existing rights, against which every later liberal position can be measured. When you need a thinker to represent the classical view of the state in its purest form, Locke is the obvious choice.
Wollstonecraft extended liberal principles to women, writing A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792).
Women as rational beings. Her central claim is that women are rational beings no less than men. If women appeared frivolous or less capable, this was the product of a deliberate denial of education, not of any natural inferiority — a thoroughly liberal application of rationalism. The argument is powerful precisely because it turns liberalism's own premises against the exclusion of women: liberals justified rights and citizenship by appeal to human rationality, so if women are rational — and Wollstonecraft insists they are — then the same justification extends to them. Any appearance of female irrationality, she argued, was the self-fulfilling result of an education designed to keep women ignorant and dependent, not evidence of a natural deficiency. Reform the education, and the supposed inferiority would disappear.
Formal equality and civil liberties. Wollstonecraft argued that the natural rights and civil liberties liberals claimed for men must, if they are genuinely universal, apply equally to women. To exclude women was to betray liberalism's own foundational equality.
Independence and the critique of dependence. She attacked an upbringing that trained women to be decorative and submissive, urging instead that women become rationally and economically independent rather than dependent on men. Only independence, she held, makes genuine virtue and citizenship possible.
The wider social benefit of equality. Wollstonecraft argued that the emancipation of women would benefit not only women but society as a whole. Educated, rational women would be better companions to their husbands and, crucially, better mothers, capable of raising rational and virtuous children and so of improving the next generation. This was a shrewd argument, meeting her contemporaries on their own ground by showing that the cause of women's equality served, rather than threatened, the wider social good — and it illustrates the characteristically liberal faith that reason and education improve society.
Significance. Wollstonecraft is an early liberal feminist, showing that liberalism's commitments to reason, rights and equality logically demand the inclusion of women. Writing in the same revolutionary decade that produced the great declarations of the rights of man, she exposed the inconsistency of proclaiming universal rights while excluding half of humanity, and she laid intellectual groundwork later drawn on by the suffrage movement and by twentieth-century liberal feminists such as Friedan. She is the clearest demonstration that liberal feminism is not a departure from liberalism but the consistent application of its own principles.
Mill is the great transitional figure, linking classical and modern liberalism, and is best known for On Liberty (1859).
The harm principle. Mill's most influential idea is that the only legitimate ground on which power may be exercised over an individual against their will is to prevent harm to others. Conduct that affects only oneself lies beyond the reach of the state or of public opinion. The principle carves out a protected sphere of self-regarding action — what a person does to themselves, or to consenting others, with no harm to third parties — within which the individual is to be left entirely free. Only other-regarding action that harms others may be restrained. The boundary is not always easy to draw, and critics have pressed hard cases, but the underlying purpose is clear: to secure the widest possible space for individual liberty consistent with protecting others from harm.
Mill held that over their own body and mind the individual is sovereign.
Freedom of expression. Mill defended free speech vigorously, arguing that even mistaken opinions should be heard: a false view may contain part of the truth, and even a wholly false view sharpens our grasp of the true one by forcing it to be defended. This is the "marketplace of ideas". Mill's case for free expression is one of the most influential arguments in the entire liberal tradition. He held that silencing an opinion robs the human race: if the opinion is right, we lose the chance to exchange error for truth; if it is wrong, we lose the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth that comes from its collision with falsehood. Even true beliefs, he warned, decay into "dead dogma" if they are never challenged and so never properly understood. Free expression is thus not a concession to the wrong-headed but a condition of holding any belief rationally — a thoroughly liberal conclusion grounded in the value of reason and the fallibility of all human judgement.
Tyranny of the majority. Mill warned that democracy could menace liberty not only through government but through the social pressure of majority opinion, which could crush individuality and enforce conformity. Liberty must therefore be protected against the majority as well as the state. This was a strikingly original warning, because it identified a danger that purely formal democracy overlooks: even a perfectly democratic society, in which the majority truly rules, can oppress dissenters and eccentrics through custom, disapproval and the weight of public opinion, without any law being passed at all. Mill therefore valued not only legal protections for liberty but a culture of individuality and toleration, in which difference is welcomed rather than merely permitted. His concern explains why liberals favour constitutional limits on democratic majorities and why they prize a vigorous, pluralistic civil society as a safeguard of freedom. It is also one of the clearest illustrations of the liberal anxiety that democracy and liberty, though usually allies, can come into conflict.
Developmental individualism. For Mill, freedom matters above all because it allows individuals to develop their faculties and cultivate their individuality. This forward-looking, developmental conception of the individual reaches beyond classical liberalism and anticipates the modern strand, which is why Mill straddles the two. He distinguished between "higher" and "lower" pleasures and held that the point of a free society is to enable people to rise to the higher — to become more fully developed, more rational and more individual — rather than merely to satisfy whatever desires they happen to have. Freedom, on this view, is not an end in itself but the precondition of human self-development.
Women's equality. Consistent with his liberalism, Mill was an early advocate of women's rights, arguing for the legal and political equality of the sexes and serving as one of the first members of Parliament to call for women's suffrage. This places him alongside Wollstonecraft and Friedan in the liberal-feminist line and shows how the harm principle and the value of individuality apply as much to women as to men.
Significance. Mill furnished liberalism's enduring statement on the limits of authority and, through developmental individualism, opened the path from classical to modern liberalism. He is the single most useful thinker for illustrating that liberalism's strands shade into one another, and his harm principle remains the reference point for almost every modern debate about the proper limits of the law over private conduct.
Rawls is the foundational modern liberal theorist of social justice, writing A Theory of Justice (1971).
The original position and the veil of ignorance. Rawls asks what principles people would choose for their society if they selected them from an "original position" behind a veil of ignorance — ignorant of their own class, gender, talents and conception of the good. Stripped of self-interested bias, their choice would be impartial and fair.
The two principles. Rawls argues they would choose, first, equal basic liberties for all, and second, the difference principle: social and economic inequalities are justified only insofar as they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. The reasoning behind the difference principle is a form of prudent caution: not knowing whether you will turn out rich or poor, talented or struggling, you would not gamble on ending up at the bottom of a grossly unequal society, but would instead choose arrangements that protect the worst-off position, since that position might be yours. This is why Rawls's theory licenses a welfare state and progressive taxation — not out of envy or a desire to level for its own sake, but because fair-minded individuals, reasoning impartially, would insist that inequalities be justified by their benefit to the least advantaged. The difference principle thus permits inequality where it lifts the floor (for instance, incentives that make everyone, including the poorest, better off) while forbidding inequality that merely enriches the already fortunate.
Justice as fairness. The resulting conception, "justice as fairness", treats fairness as the test of a just society and provides a distinctively liberal, individualist justification for redistribution, progressive taxation and the welfare state.
The priority of liberty. It is important to stress that Rawls did not subordinate freedom to equality. His first principle — equal basic liberties — has priority over the second: the difference principle may license economic redistribution, but never at the cost of the basic freedoms, which are guaranteed equally to all and cannot be traded away for material gain. This ordering is what keeps Rawls firmly within the liberal tradition: he remains, first and last, a defender of individual liberty, who argues only that liberty must be accompanied by fair social conditions if it is to be worth having. Misreading Rawls as an egalitarian who sacrifices freedom to equality is a common and serious error.
Significance. Rawls gave modern liberalism its philosophical backbone, showing how a concern for the worst-off can be derived from individualist premises rather than from socialist ones. He is most fruitfully contrasted with Locke (on property and the state) and, beyond the prescribed liberal thinkers, with the libertarian critique of redistribution associated with Nozick. For the examination, Rawls is the indispensable thinker for the modern-liberal case that the state should secure the social conditions of genuine freedom.
Friedan is a leading twentieth-century liberal feminist, author of The Feminine Mystique (1963).
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.