CPHL306 Isaiah Berlin Paper

Alyson Naseer: 500560923

Essay Question: What is Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive and negative liberty (or
freedom)? Can there be complete negative liberty? Provide an argument for your position and
make use of examples.

Dene positive and negative liberty:
According to Isaiah Berlin liberty can be dened as freedom; which is the absence of ob-
stacles to possible choices and activities, obstacles that are put by humans. There are two con-
cepts of liberty which are negative and positive. Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles,
constraints or barriers. It is freedom from external restraints, without laws being enacted, exam-
ples include freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and any other government laws. This
concept allows people to act and behave in any way they want without any human being interfer-
ing with there activity. Positive liberty can be understood as self-mastery. It is freedom to; the
ability, not simply the opportunity to do what one want to do. (Berlin, 1994) Positive liberty fo-
cuses on the internal factors affecting the degree to which individuals or groups act autonomous-
ly. An example of this would be smoking cigarettes; even though you know it is bad for you, the
desire to smoke controls you into doing so. Just because no one is preventing you from doing
something, it does not mean that you are free. Positive freedom is a matter of achieving your po-
tential, not just having potential. To have true freedom, you must be able to control your desires.


Why someone may think there cannot be complete negative liberty:
Someone may think there cannot be negative liberty because in todays societal context
you are never entirely free to do whatever you please. There many laws and morals in place to
allow, encourage and force humans to behave and act accordingly, as many are aware and fear of
the consequences if they act obediently. From the moment we are born we are taught how to be-
have by our parents or caregivers; in which we establish what is right from wrong.


State your position/defend it on why there cannot be negative liberty:
There cannot be complete negative liberty only; though this may seem tempting it is un-
realistic and dangerous for humans. Governments should only restrict individual choice when
ones actions could harm another, though other decisions that may cause harm to ourselves are
ours to make, which John Mill claims.
For example, suppose we had negative liberty only. If someone comes up to you while
you are on your laptop and takes it from you, or in worse cases harms you; then it is considered
ne because everyone has freedom to do whatever they please. However, knowing that there are
not laws to protect your rights in todays society most likely will lead you into moving out of con-
tact with humans. However this will then impede on your negative liberty, not allowing you to
live your life accordingly. Another example in the context as to why negative liberty is unrealis-
tic is because not everyone is considered equal for numerous ways including; mobility, socio-
economic status, different skills, diseases etc which all ready put constraints on what you can and
cannot do. If someone lives in a poor country such as India they are not entirely free to do what-
ever they want; only in the context of there circumstances. If that person wants to travel to
France to go shopping and then move to Canada to live they cannot do so due to there lack of
money, government laws and family circumstances which limit there freedom.

In favour of the famous philosopher John Stuart Mill, negative freedom can exist to a cer-
tain point where restrictions be made where ones actions could harm others. Governments
should only restrict individual choice when ones actions could harm others. Otherwise we should
be able to act the way we want to, making our own decisions on what is good and bad for us. For
example cigarette smoking, there are no laws in affect to ban it however we are aware of the con-
sequences of the action and base our decisions to smoke it or not, at the risk of our own health.
However, there are some objections to Mills theory on negative liberty. He believes that if
someone drinks and drives and harms another they should be punished for the harm they caused,
but not for there drinking. I do not agree with this, rules should be in place to prohibit peoples
actions which indirectly harm others as well, with consequences attached. In conclusion, having
complete negative liberty causes more harm than good; which takes away more of your freedoms
in the long run and puts many at risk. Government laws being in place help protect us to create a
safe and prosperous society in which we live in. Though I am in favour of Mills theory on nega-
tive liberty, there are some aws.






























Works Cited

Negative and Positive freedom - The Student Room. (2009, February 22). The Student Room
RSS. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from < http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/Negative_and_Pos-
itive_freedom>

Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford. Retrieved October 5, 2014, from < http://www.oxfordscholar-
ship.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/view/10.1093/019924989X.001.0001/acprof-9780199249893-
chapter-4>

Freedom. (2004). Glossary of Terms:. Retrieved May 19, 2014, from < https://www.marxists.org/
glossary/terms/f/r.htm>

Lacwing, M. (n.d.). Mill on Liberty. Routledge. Retrieved May 11, 2014, from <http://cw.rout-
ledge.com/textbooks/alevelphilosophy/data/A2/Mill/MillLiberty.pdf>


McCray, B. (n.d.). Freedom FromFreedom To. The Art of Manliness RSS. Retrieved May 19,
2014, from < http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/02/21/freedom-from-freedom-to/>

Schefczyk, M. (n.d.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Mill, John Stuart: Ethics []. Retrieved
May 19, 2014, from < http://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/>