Individualism - Political science Notes explaind about individualism in detaild PDF

Preview

Summary

IndividualismIntroductionThe individualistic theory stands for maximum amount of individual initiative andfreedom. It champions the cause of liberty.Liberty is considered to be the highest human value. Man should have completeliberty of thought and action in order to achieve the fullest development ...

Description

Individualism Introduction The individualistic theory stands for maximum amount of individual initiative and freedom. It champions the cause of liberty. Liberty is considered to be the highest human value. Man should have complete liberty of thought and action in order to achieve the fullest development of his personality. It advocates freedom of the individual and non-interference of the State in the sphere of the individual activities.

Background The individualistic theory of the State is as old as the State itself. The root of this theory may be traced back to the earliest political philosophy of the Sophism of ancient Greece However, as a political philosophy, it developed in the writings of John Locke, an English political philosopher of the 17th century, who was an ardent advocate of individualism Individualism came into prominence in the 18th and 19t centuries. A group of economists known as the physiocrats in France in the eighteenth century were considered to be the pioneers of individualism. The Physiocrats raised their battle-cry of “laissez-faire” or “leave individual alone”. They totally opposed to the State interference in the economic sphere. Individualism partly developed due to the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth century which had supported the idea of free competition, free trade and noninterference of the State in the economic system. As a social and political theory, it reached its peak in the nineteenth century. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer and F.A. Hayek are main exponents of this theory. Adam Smith advocated free competition and noninterference of the State in economic system. He denounced the laws which restricted free competition and free interaction of demand and supply. J.S.Mill was a strong advocate of individual freedom. He wrote, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” Herbert Spencer was also a great champion of individual liberty.

He said, “Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not upon the equal freedom of any other man.” F.A. Hayek strongly denounced planning and the State interference. He condemned planning as “a road to serfdom” (slavery)

Meaning and Statement The individualistic theory is otherwise known as “the Laissez Faire Theory.” The term “laissez faire” in the French language means ‘let alone’ or ‘leave alone’. According to this theory, the State should ‘leave alone’ the individuals and should not interfere in the sphere of individual activities. It puts emphasis on individual happiness and prosperity. It assumes that individual is the centre of activities in any social system. The individualistic theory considers the State as ‘a necessary evil’. It is an evil because it encroaches upon the freedom of individuals. As it is an evil, it is better to have as little of it as far as possible. But at the same time, the State is regarded as ‘necessary’ because of selfish and egoistic nature of human beings. It is necessary in order to stop the anti-social activities of individuals in the society. But it should not be all powerful, omnipotent and omnicompetent. Hence it is considered as a ‘necessary evil”. They should have complete freedom to live and move freely in society. They should not face any obstruction form outside. The functions of the State should be confined to a minimum possible extent. The State is viewed as a negative institution. It should exist only to hinder the hindrances. The individualistic theory advocates maximum freedom of the individuals and minimum functions of the State. It supports the idea of “that State is the best which governs the least.” Hence the individualists advocate “maximum possible individual freedom and minimum possible State action.” The individualists stand for a police State. The function of a policeman is only preventive or negative in character. . Likewise the State should prevent the lawbreakers and hinder the hindrances on the path of individual in realisation of his best self. “The State is simply a policeman, and its duty is neither more or less than to prevent robbery and murder and enforce contracts.” The State is also compared to a “night watchman” whose job is merely a negative one. The individualists are not unanimous as to what should be the legitimate functions of the State. Most of the individualists allow the State to perform the following two categories of functions:

1) Maintenance of law and order within State. 2) Protection of individuals against the external aggression. or internal rebellion. Regarding the first category of functions, it is said that it is the duty of the State to protect life, liberty and property of the individuals. It should protect individuals from physical injury, slander and personal harms. It should also protect individual against false contract or breach of contract and should see enforcement of contracts being lawfully made. The sole function of the government is to protect the individual form violence or fraud. With regard to the second category of function, it is the duty of the State to protectthe individuals against external aggression or internal rebellion beyond these functions, the individualist do not allow the State to perform any other functions.

Merits 1) Ethical Defence : Individualism may be justified or defended from ethical or moral ground. It is maintained that man’s personality can be best developed when he is left alone. It is only in a free atmosphere an individual can develop his personality. The highest development of individual is possible only when he gets an opportunity for selfdevelopment. In a free atmosphere, incentive is provided to individual to develop his own self. The State interference of any kind is likely to destroy his incentive and make him indifferent in all matters. It is, therefore, in the fitness of things that an individual should get maximum freedom to develop his personality in the society. 2) Economic Defence: Individualism is defended on economic grounds. If there is ‘free competition’ in a society, industry, trade and commerce will prosper well and there will be maximum production. Free competition among producers and labourers will bring about automatic adjustment of labour, profit, price, quantity and quality of production. It will result in maximum production. Further, free economic system provides sufficient incentives to persons to work hard Trade, industry and commerce flourish, if they are left to private enterprises. 3) Scientific Defence:

Individualism is also defended form scientific point of View. Competitions is said to be a scientific law of nature. There is a continuous struggle for existence in natural world and in this struggle only the fittest has the right to survive. The scientific defence of individualism is influenced by “the theory of evolution” of Darwin which upholds the views that free competition among species leads to the survival of the fittest. The weak and the incompetent, who cannot withstand the competition, will be eliminated from the field. The natural course of progress, therefore, depends on free competition and self-reliance. An individual should be allowed to stand or fall according to his merit in the competition for survival without any support from the State. 4) Practical Argument: Practical experience shows that government attempts to do many things but fail to do them properly. Government action results in red tapism, waste, delay and corruption. As compared to public enterprises, the private enterprises are more efficient and earn greater profits. Hence the State should restrict its activities and give maximum opportunities to the individual to mobiles their own resources and achieve the best results for himself and the society at large. To sum up, the individualistic theory does not favour the State interferences in the sphere of individual activities. Like “a night watchman”, the only function of the State is a keep and watch on life and property of the individual. Individualism aims at establishing free society with ample. Freedom and incentives guaranteed to individuals. 5 Faith in individual: Individualism has tremendous faith in individual. Society is viewed as nothing but a mere collection of individuals. As J.S. Mill rightly observes, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will is to prevent harm to others… Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

6. Emphasis on liberty and open society: Liberty is the soul of individualism. It believes in an open society where each individual will have full opportunity to develop his personality It provides ample opportunities for full development of eve individual.

7. Increase of production: Industrial production got a powerful impetus from the theory of free trade. Every country in which the industrial revolution took place produced commodities on a large scale. The lure of profit in industry, trade and commerce induced producers to give their best in every field. Industry was thoroughly mechanised, means of transport and communication were improved and all kinds of cheap goods reached the four corners of the world. It resulted in progress and prosperity of mankind.. 8. Encouragement of self-reliance: Individualism encourages self-reliance. It rendered a great service as far as it laid emphasis on the dangers of state-help for the good of the individual and society. “In emphasising self-reliance, in combating needless governmental interference, in urging the value of the individual in society, it has contributed much to the virility of modern thought.” To sum up, the individualistic theory does not favour the State interference in the sphere of individual activities. Like a night watchman, the only function of the State is to keep a watch on life and property of the individual. Individualism aims at establishing free society with ample freedom and incentives guaranteed to individuals.

Limitations (1) State is not-a necessary evil: The individualist’s view that state is a necessary evil, is not correct. The state is the result of social instinct of man as Aristotle has said, “State came into existence for the sake of mere life but it continues to exist for the sake of good life”. The individualist view that the progress of civilization is possible in the freedom of the individual is also not correct. “The higher the state of civilization”, observed Huxley, “the more completely do the actions of one member of the social body influence all the rest; and the less possible is it for any one man to do wrong without interfering more or less with the freedom of all his fellow citizens, so that even upon the narrowest view of the functions of the state, it must be admitted to have wider powers than

the advocates of the laissez faire theory are disposed to admit”. Thus in a progressive civilization, more control of the state is needed. Today the state has become a welfare institution. Burke has rightly said, “State is a partnership in all sciences, a partnership in all art, a partnership in all virtue and in all perfection”. State is essential for the development and progress of man. It is a historical fact that the state has done a lot for the welfare of man. Thus it is improper to call it a necessary evil. (2) Laws do not curtail liberty: John Stuart Mill stated that with increase in the activities of the state, the laws will also increase and consequently the liberty of the individual will be curtailed. Today, no wise man can agree with this view of John Stuart Mill because the state enacts many such laws as help the people in their welfare. For instance, if the state or government makes laws for the benefit of the workers, how is their liberty curtailed by such laws? (3) Man is not always the best judge of this interest: The individualists were of the view that each individual is the best guardian of his own interests and, therefore, he can think of them himself. But this is not a reality. Many people and classes are not so intelligent as to know what is good for them. Thus Dr. Gamer says, “Not only is the individual not always a competent judge of his own interests as our economic consumer, but in affairs of personal conduct, he is often not to be trusted, particularly in matters relating to his health or safety or moral welfare. The truth is, society may be better judge of a man’s intellectual, moral, or physical needs, than he is himself and it may rightfully protect him from disease and danger against his own wishes and compel him to educate his children and to live a decent life”. Sidwick, Laveleye and Jerons, etc., also hold identical views. (4) Open competition is undesirable: The individualists were the supporters of open competition but when this theory was given a practical shape, many dangerous results accrued in Europe. How could the labourers compete with the capitalists? It

encouraged the exploitation of the labourers and their condition became miserable, which resulted in the rise of socialism in Europe. If even today, the government does not control of profits of the capitalists, and increase in the prices of the commodities is not checked, not only the condition of the labourers would worsen but the consumers would also face the same fate. In India, before the declaration of Internal Emergency of June 25, 1975 the situation was the same. It is essential that there should be the state regulation and control over industries and trade. Otherwise, many undesirable results would accrue. (5) The Doctrine of the survival of the fittest is most dangerous: It will be a great foolishness to give recognition to Spencer’s theory of the survival of the fittest, because it will result in creating the same situation as is seen in the jungle, where stronger animals consider the weaker ones as their food. With the acceptance of this theory, there will be the rule of thieves, dacoits, rogues and physically strong people and, in place of justice and truth; the supremacy of brute physical power will prevail. The society will have the same anarchy as was depicted by Hobbes in his state of nature. Thus the progress of human civilization and culture will be retarded and there will be an end to social peace and order. (6) Welfare of the individual lies in the welfare of the society: Individualists say that the society came into being for the welfare of the individual and many functions of the individual do not influence the society. But the reality is that the individual is an inseparable organ of the society and he learns everything from the society. Without society, the development of individual is not possible. An individual’s welfare lies in the welfare of the society. Due to individualistic concept, the individual thinks himself above the society, which is not a correct approach. (7) We cannot limit the functions of the state on the basis of past mistakes:

The individualists place the past mistakes of society before us in an exaggerated form and say that, on this basis, the functions of the state should be limited. But this viewpoint is not correct. The reason for this is that though the state did commit some mistakes in the past, yet this fact cannot become a guiding factor for future, because as compared to state, private institutions have committed more mistakes, on which the individualists depend very much. In the past, the state has performed many such functions as proved beneficial to the individual and the society. Functions like social security, labour welfare, abolition of zamindari, control on prices, education, health and increase of productions, performed by the state, endorse this view. It is also not necessary that the state would repeat its past mistakes in future also. The fact is that the state would definitely learn something from its past mistakes and it would not repeat those mistakes in future. (8) We need state for furthering human welfare: If we accept the individualists’ view, the functions of the state would be limited. Now the question is who should make arrangements for Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, education health, roads, hospitals, electricity, dams, etc.? Individualists want to transfer all these functions to private hands, but private institutions cannot perform these functions properly. This has been proved in almost all the countries. Therefore, it is essential that the functions of the state should be expanded. (9) Individualists’ notions about the individual and society are wrong: Individualists’ notion is that by nature man is selfish. Society for them is a collection of disintegrated individuals, but both these notions are wrong. The fact is that though man is selfish to some extent, yet he is social. Where he not a social animal, human civilization would not have progressed so much. Secondly, human society is not an inanimate thing like a machine. It is an institution with organic unity in it.

Utilitarianism Introduction Moral theories can be divided into two major types, teleological and deontological. In teleological theories, (moral) right is derived from a theory of the (non-moral) good, or what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. In Greek, telos means ‘goal’ or ‘aim.’ In deontological theories, (moral) right is derived without a theory of (non-moral) good, or what choice is (morally) right regardless of the end consequences. In Greek, deon means ‘duty.’ Utilitarian theories are teleological.

WHAT UTILITARIANISM IS (PRELIMINARY STATEMENT) The Creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiest principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure (J.S. Mill Utilitarianism, p. 10).

Definition of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism , at its most basic, states that something is moral, or good when it produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. It's a theory of normative ethics that asks whether a specific action is good or bad, moral or immoral. Utilitarianism answers this question with an economic analysis that focuses on human lives and says that those actions that make people happy are good. For example, a utilitarian may ask whether it's moral for politicians to spend billions of dollars on campaign ads. He or she would examine how the money is spent and whether the ads directly resulted in improving people's lives, or if that money could have been better spent on something else.

Background Though the first systematic account of utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), the core insight motivating the theory occurred much earlier. That insight is that morally appropriate behavior will not harm others, but instead increase happiness or ‘utility.’ What is distinctive about utilitarianism is its approach in taking that insight and developing an account of moral evaluation and moral direction that expands on it. Early precursors to the Classical Utilitarians include the British Moralists, Cumberland, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Gay, and Hume. Of these, Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746) is explicitly utilitarian when it comes to action choice. Some of the earliest utilitarian thinkers were the ‘theological’ utilitarians such as Richard Cumberland (1631–1718) and John Gay (1699–1745). They believed that promoting human happiness was incumbent on us since it was approved by God. After enumerating

the ways in which humans come under obligations (by perceiving the “natural consequences of things”, the obligation to be virtuous, our civil obligations that arise from laws, and obligations arising from “the authority of God”) John Gay writes: “… from the consideration of these four sorts of obligation…it is evident that a full and complete obligation which will extend to all cases, can only be that arising from the authority of God; because God only can in all cases make a man happy or miserable: and therefore, since we are always obliged to that conformity called virtue, it is evident that the immediate rule or cri...