◈ A Critical Review of Liberalism, Individualism, and the Role of the State ◈
Liberal philosophy is fundamentally built on the assumption:
"Every individual is the best judge of his own welfare."
According to this belief, every human being is naturally capable of determining what benefits them and strives to attain it. Therefore, the state should refrain from the role of making individuals ‘virtuous’. Interestingly, some modern religious circles have also begun to adopt this very argument.
In its economic dimension, liberal philosophy invokes the Pareto Principle to argue that since individuals are solely responsible for their own welfare, there is no need for paternalism or state-sponsored guidance.
This leads to the belief that neither the state nor any other institution needs to intervene for an individual’s betterment.
A critical examination of the liberal assumption reveals multiple flaws, many of which have been identified through research in Behavioral Economics:
① Human beings are not inherently selfish:
Liberalism treats individuals as always self-interested, but experiments show that human behavior is often influenced by emotions and social factors.
② Individuals often misjudge their own welfare:
People frequently make poor decisions about what is truly in their best interest due to various internal and external influences.
③ Willful avoidance of right decisions:
At times, even when individuals recognize what is good for them, they deliberately act against it.
In 2017, Richard Thaler, a pioneer in Behavioral Economics and Nobel laureate, proposed a balanced approach called Libertarian Paternalism. This approach suggests:
✔ The state and social institutions should engage in gentle guidance and moral encouragement to help shape individual behavior.
✔ Policies should be crafted that assist individuals in making the right choices, without forceful imposition.
In his book “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Thaler explains why nudging people toward good decisions is essential, and how the opposition to paternalism is often unrealistic and illogical.
While liberal theory insists that the state should avoid interfering in individual lives, the reality shows otherwise. Liberal states have always practiced paternalism—a prime example being compulsory education at the state level.
Whenever policies based on religion are proposed in society, liberal circles quickly raise objections, claiming it is a violation of individual freedom.
Regrettably, even some religious individuals echo this objection, saying:
“There is no Qur’anic evidence for using state apparatus to make people righteous.”
Such a stance reveals intellectual weakness and an undue fascination with liberal philosophy.
The notion that every individual can independently determine their welfare and needs no guidance is flawed both logically and empirically. A balanced, reformative role of the state—especially in moral and religious domains—is not only valid but essential. To deny this in the name of liberalism is to ignore both practical realities and the historical role of moral governance.
❀ The Core Assumption of Liberal Philosophy ❀
Liberal philosophy is fundamentally built on the assumption:
"Every individual is the best judge of his own welfare."
According to this belief, every human being is naturally capable of determining what benefits them and strives to attain it. Therefore, the state should refrain from the role of making individuals ‘virtuous’. Interestingly, some modern religious circles have also begun to adopt this very argument.
❀ Rejection of the Pareto Principle and Paternalism ❀
In its economic dimension, liberal philosophy invokes the Pareto Principle to argue that since individuals are solely responsible for their own welfare, there is no need for paternalism or state-sponsored guidance.
This leads to the belief that neither the state nor any other institution needs to intervene for an individual’s betterment.
❀ Flaws in the Liberal Assumption ❀
A critical examination of the liberal assumption reveals multiple flaws, many of which have been identified through research in Behavioral Economics:
① Human beings are not inherently selfish:
Liberalism treats individuals as always self-interested, but experiments show that human behavior is often influenced by emotions and social factors.
② Individuals often misjudge their own welfare:
People frequently make poor decisions about what is truly in their best interest due to various internal and external influences.
③ Willful avoidance of right decisions:
At times, even when individuals recognize what is good for them, they deliberately act against it.
❀ Libertarian Paternalism: A Viable Solution ❀
In 2017, Richard Thaler, a pioneer in Behavioral Economics and Nobel laureate, proposed a balanced approach called Libertarian Paternalism. This approach suggests:
✔ The state and social institutions should engage in gentle guidance and moral encouragement to help shape individual behavior.
✔ Policies should be crafted that assist individuals in making the right choices, without forceful imposition.
In his book “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness”, Thaler explains why nudging people toward good decisions is essential, and how the opposition to paternalism is often unrealistic and illogical.
❀ The Real Role of the Liberal State ❀
While liberal theory insists that the state should avoid interfering in individual lives, the reality shows otherwise. Liberal states have always practiced paternalism—a prime example being compulsory education at the state level.
❀ Objections to Religious Policy-Making ❀
Whenever policies based on religion are proposed in society, liberal circles quickly raise objections, claiming it is a violation of individual freedom.
Regrettably, even some religious individuals echo this objection, saying:
“There is no Qur’anic evidence for using state apparatus to make people righteous.”
Such a stance reveals intellectual weakness and an undue fascination with liberal philosophy.
✔ Conclusion: The Fallacy of Liberal Absolutism
The notion that every individual can independently determine their welfare and needs no guidance is flawed both logically and empirically. A balanced, reformative role of the state—especially in moral and religious domains—is not only valid but essential. To deny this in the name of liberalism is to ignore both practical realities and the historical role of moral governance.
