Individualism Vs Relativism

European literature of the late fifteenth century and early sixteenth century was a time marked by increased individualism and an inclination to remove all of the remnants of medieval society. It was a time of protest and reform of the ideals, that were once thought to be correct, to more modern ideas, such as free will and that the self-made individual occupies the center of a rational universe. As this new concept of individualism began to spread, there were apparent discrepancies between the noble ideals presented by the modern renaissance humanists and the reality of human behavior. The discrepancies are shown clearly by the Pico’s “Oration on the Dignity of Man” and Erasmus’ “Praise of Folly.” In the text by Pico, he describes the ideal characteristics of this new renaissance humanist movement emphasizing the individual. While in the text by Erasmus, he shows the shocking reality between human fallibility and human perfectibility.

Although liberals agree about the value of liberty, their views on what it means to be ‘free’ vary significantly. It was Isaiah Berlin who first created the concepts of negative and positive freedom that helped to differentiate between the two liberals’ views of freedom. The concept of negative freedom was adopted by classical liberals, who believed that freedom was defined as being left alone and free from interference. Classical liberals believed this theory to mean that individuals should be free from external restrictions or constraints. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believed in positive freedom. This, modernist’s perceived to means that all individuals have the ability to be their own master, and thus reach full autonomy. Unlike classical liberals, who had little faith in humankind, Modernists conveyed humans in a much more positive light: people are rational beings that are capable, and therefore should be able, to flourish and

The further development of industrialisation led to social and economic inequality. This led to a revision of classical liberal ideas to prevent the spread of ignorance and poverty. It is suggested that modern liberals have betrayed classical liberal ideas as they embrace collectivism and diverge from classical liberalism on issues such as freedom. However, it can be argued that modern liberals have simply built on classical liberal ideas such as its commitment to the individual.

Classical liberalism allow an individual to use primary social value of liberty in the political culture that extent until liberties of the others disturbed. Classical liberal ideas often form the basis for opposition to the use of government to attain social and personal objectives. They stress reliance on private the free market to determine the best outcomes rather than the private initiatives [1].

Individualism is a core value of American culture. It has been influencing all the fields of society, economics, politics and culture. It has played an immense and extensive effect to shape the character and mindset of the American nation. In the colonial period of 1607 - 1776, these Europeans had come to a new land to find new opportunity. The Colonists knew nothing but the rule and culture of England, thus bringing traits of it into their new society in the New World. They did not have a keep grip on societal development until people started to speak up about new ideas and meanings of life. But they feared from straying from the past traditions of England because of a possible chance that England would see that they were not able to thrive and settle in this new place. Thus, when different opinions, ideas, or anything opposing current societal ways, it was to be banished, killed, or in some way rid of before society was able to change in any way other than what the entire group of the community wanted. This time focused on groups of people and the entire population’s views and conformity rather than the individual’s beliefs and principles. The rationalism period between 1750 and 1800 focused on major changes in society especially through religion and government life. Acts and plans imposed by the British government enabled Americans to realize the lack of true freedom and liberty they had being under control of England. This era sparked numerous new mindsets and attitudes

The Enlightenment or the Age of Reason was a major influence in the American revolution. The Enlightenment was a cultural movement that began in Europe that promoted the power of reason in order to reform society and acknowledge intellectuals. His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States[8], Locke was coined the Father of Liberalism.[9] Locke stated that In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, liberty, or possessions,” which was later implemented in the American Declaration of Independence as, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”[10]

1) for example, social security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Another factor that spurred the growth and development of this “new” liberalism, and most likely the most rudimentary, was “a growing conviction that, so far from being ‘the guardian of every other right’ (Ely, 1992: 26), property rights generated an unjust inequality of power that led to a less-than-equal liberty (typically, ‘positive liberty’) for the working class” (Guide, pg. 10). This idea is closely related to American Liberalism today, in that it advocates civil and personal liberties with an indifference to private ownership. Another tenant of modern liberalism, taken from Rawls’ great work, “A Theory of Justice” published in 1971, “is that the ‘new liberalism’ has become focused on developing a theory of social justice” (Guide, pg. 10). This basic principle asserts that society should be structured so that social and economic inequalities give the greatest advantage to those who are the least well off. This works on the principle of reciprocity so that no social group advances at the cost of another. Liberals also believe that it is essential for the government to protect citizens from events such as environmental derogation as a consequence of “injustices and failures of free-market capitalism” (PowerPoints, Modern Liberalism, pg. 2). Modern liberalism believes that government protection and action is necessary in achieving equality and

In classic liberals eyes, true freedom is that when the individual is left completely to their own desire, at best the state can be seen as ‘a necessary evil’, or as Jefferson summed up, “Government is best when governed least”. On the other hand there are the modern liberals, who in contrast, have advanced a developmental form of individualism that prioritises human flourishing over the quest for interest satisfaction. This idea says that people can be developed in order to become the best person they can be. In contrast to classic liberals, modern liberals follow positive freedom. This was an idea proposed by Green in the late nineteenth centaury; it recognizes that liberty may also be threatened by social disadvantage and inequality. This, in turn, implied a revised view of the state. By protecting individuals from the social evils that threaten to limit their lives, the state can expand freedom, and not merely diminish it. In the place of the old minimal state, modern liberals have devised a new ‘enabling state’, exercising an increasingly wide range of social and economic responsibilities. Therefore modern liberals differ from the classic liberal in terms of the individual, as the classics believe the state restricts and limits individual freedom, whereas modern liberals see the state as enabling and protective, and can therefore boost levels of individual freedom

For the purposes of this essay, I define liberalism as a school of political thought concerned with liberty,

Moreover, one way in which modern liberalism has departed from the ideas of classical liberalism is the extent to which the state should involve itself in the lives of the individual. Classical liberals, in particular John Stuart Mill, emphasised a minimal state and believed that an interfering state would impede upon the private lives of individuals. Yet modern liberals fully supported an enabling state; Beveridge believed that citizens should be protected by the state s from ‘the cradle to the grave.’ This implies that, unlike classical liberals, modern liberals supported a government which is fully involved in the lives of individuals and would therefore support policies such as benefits and the national health service. However, classical liberals, notably Samuel Smiles, thought that people should take responsibility for their own welfare because the individual is the guardian of their own prosperity and therefore state intervention is dangerous. This contradicts the belief of modern liberals, who believed that a state should be established in order to help people to help themselves.

Eastern expressions of Transcendentalism differ from Western expressions in the belief of reincarnation, reality, and individualism. Eastern believing reincarnation and Western not. Eastern believing more on that the consciousness creates reality while Western tends to leans on being just is. Individualism or each person is a god, remains emphasized in the West but collectivism or all people is god being emphasized in the East. Both expressions of Transcendentalism hold that we are all one and that all reality is one spiritual

John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)

When it comes to a base principle for my personal moral system, I would be inclined to fall forth in the relativism category. As humans were are taught a basic or general system for which we should follow in order to blend within society. In doing so, humans have set forth laws to which each person within a governed area should adhere too. As a child understanding certain laws was quite difficult, but more difficult to comprehend was the actions of others. After years of experience within a society that says one thing and does another, I have come to realize that it is difficult to stick to absolutes. Since relativism seems to work well for others, why not give it a try? The luxury of relativism is and will continue to be the ever changing

Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces

Describe in detail the role that the ideas of “overlapping consensus” and “comprehensive doctrine” play in Rawl’s theoretical answer to the fundamental question of Political Liberalism: “How is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?” (Rawls 4). More specifically, how do these concepts help to preserve the traditional liberal values of freedom and equality? And do these concepts help to preserve stability within a pluralistic society?