The politics department relaunched its politics honorary, Pi Sigma Alpha, at a Sept. 1 talk by an assistant professor from the Washington D.C. campus.
David Azerrad, assistant professor and research fellow at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship, asked in his speech if the liberalism proposed by English philosopher John Locke inevitably led to a more progressive outlook, such as the one championed by political philosopher John Rawls.
Azerrad argued that while Locke’s liberalism tempers people’s moral longings by teaching that humans are “not entitled to all that much beyond certain basic rights,” Rawls’ liberalism “fuels the utopian longing for perfect justice.”
“Lockean rights, in turn, are firmly grounded in nature,” Azerrad said. “Rawlsian rights, by contrast, are anchored in mutual hypothetical incentive. Behind the veil of ignorance, we all agree to recognize certain basic liberties in one another.”
People mistakenly associate Locke’s liberalism with expressive individualism, the ability to do whatever they want in their private lives, Azerrad said.
“Locke’s liberalism is not in the service of permitting or empowering individuals to fashion and refashion themselves into whatever they may so please,” Azerrad said in his speech. “Provided, of course, as they allow others to do the same. It is true that Locke, as I mentioned, teaches us to think of ourselves first and foremost as rights bearing individuals. And it is true that in the Lockean state, individuals have many freedoms, however, Locke places considerable restrictions on how we may exercise our liberties.”
Locke is neither a libertarian nor a liberal, in the contemporary sense of the terms, according to Azerrad.
“His liberalism has much more prosaic ends,” Azerrad said. “His goal, and this is his political project, is to create a more peaceful, populous and prosperous world, as he puts it.”
While Locke wanted to promote commerce, science and religious toleration, Rawls wanted to “make life fair,” according to Azerrad.
“Rawls longs for perfect justice, for a world in which every last person gets what they deserve and nothing more,” Azerrad said. “This uncompromising demand for justice can, of course, never be satisfied, at least not in this world.”
In Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice,” he asks his readers to step behind the “veil of ignorance” to examine the original position, the kind of society they would like to live in if they knew nothing about themselves.
“Locke’s liberalism is anchored in nature, in a state of nature that is meant to reveal human nature and make clear why we need a liberal state,” Azerrad said. “Rawls’ liberalism, by contrast, is anchored in the original position, which demands that we actually completely abstract from nature. In fact, that we transcend it altogether.”
Sophomore Phoebe Warren said she appreciated how Azerrad distinguished between Locke and Rawls.
“I thought it was interesting how he talked about the difference in the individual between Locke and Rawls — the Lockean individual has more freedom and the Rawlsian individual has more duty,” Warren said.
Junior Jackson Casey said Azerrad made a strong case that progressivism is not the necessary conclusion of liberalism.
“I took an American political thought class last year or two years ago, and we touched on Rawls a little bit, so this was a really great refresher on some of that,” Casey said. “It had some of the same themes about Rawls and his conception of justice. Dr. Azerrad did a great job of describing that and explaining how it doesn’t necessarily align fully to a more classical liberal worldview, which encourages independence that seeks to produce an economy and generate wealth for other citizens.”
