Ksenia Benz 17/4/12

Introduction to Philosophy Positive vs. Negative Liberty

Liberty is one of the most valuable things known to man. Those without it may be willing to argue, fight or even lose their lives in pursuit of what they feel is so vitally important to their lives. When talking of liberty we are referring to the right to live our lives on our terms, not under the power of some external power. Liberty is considered such a significant protocol that it is not called into question. The fact it is important to so many people however has meant that there have been many discussions on what exactly the term liberty means and under what conditions would we consider people to be free. Political philosophers have many theories in response to this and it is necessary to look at some of the main arguments and concepts to get a better understanding on the concept of liberty. Distinguishing between positive and negative liberty can be dated back a very long time, but Isaiah Berlin was first to examine the idea closely. The most popular definition of liberty is that of Isaiah Berlin, whose essay Two Concepts of Liberty (1969) gave rise to the ideas of positive and negative liberty. According to Isaiah Berlin, we are able to think about liberty in two ways. Negative liberty is freedom from whilst positive liberty is freedom to. Negative liberty is a result of a lack of external restrictions, barriers or obstacles. It can be described as an area of someones business free from interference from others. You are essentially free and there is no one stopping you from acting in whichever way you want (1). Firstly, we can look at liberty in the sense that there are no external obstacles in an individuals path that will prevent him from doing something. Second, we can say that freedom is a result of an individual being able to control and decide what they do or want. Simply put, negative liberty is the liberty from, or in the absence of something,

Ksenia Benz 17/4/12

Introduction to Philosophy

whereas positive liberty is freedom to do or be something. In contrast, positive liberty is self-mastery or self realization; the ability to control ones own life and develop personal independence. This concept sees liberty as the presence of control on a person. Freedom means self-determination and control of ones own destiny and interests. Berlin used the idea of positive liberty to answer the question What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that? (1). There are of course fundamental differences between the positive and negative concepts of liberty, one being their views on factors that are external or internal to a person. Negative liberty is interested in interference from external forces such as the state, whereas positive liberty concerns itself with factors that are internal. This gives rise to the question of whether positive freedom is in fact a political issue or one that is more concerned with psychology, Those who answer no obviously support negative liberty, but those who answer yes believe that it is possible for positive liberty to be promoted through political action. Supporters of positive liberty may also see themselves as not just the individual but represented by society as a whole a tribe, a race, a church, a state, the great society of the living and dead and the yet unborn (1). By manipulating the meaning of the individual, dictators have been able to disguise positive liberty into a justification for oppression which, in itself is a fundamental opposite to liberty. Promoters of negative liberty are able to avoid this line of reason by denying any kind of relationship between ones freedom and desires. In a modern society like the United Kingdom there are many liberties that can be enjoyed. Liberties such as the right to speak, in a limited context, what one wants to or what one wants to write etc. are still limited even in todays world. A person can not say what ever they feel when ever they like if it goes against certain laws, such as if the

Ksenia Benz 17/4/12

Introduction to Philosophy

person wanted to yell out BOMB! in a crowded movie theatre. These laws are set to protect people from being harmed. Societies should allow liberties to its members as long as their actions do not harm others within that society. What exactly does do not harm others mean? Some people would argue that physical harm only means harming others. Physical harm in fact is what most people call harm. Some physical harm though is not really harm at all. In fact, it can help the individual a great deal. For instance, when an adult smacks a child on their hand as a punishment they in turn hurt the child. In a normal situation, this does not permanently harm the child and would instead help them learn not to do whatever action they associate it with. So in this context, not all physical harm should be illegal. Another argument it to define harm as not just physical but their is also emotional harm, brought on by lots of things and can be just as bad if not worse than physical harm. But how can we define what emotional harm is? Is emotional only when people are offended? If an offending person is harmful then there is no limit to what can and cant be called harmful. For instance, a person may be offended by someone using strong language in front of them. They are harming that person emotionally then the offence is emotional harm. The law sets out to only stop those harming others, this would fit into that category. The person using the offensive language could then consider his limit of speech as against his rights to free speech, which could cause some emotional harm. Then the person who was offended is now harming the other person. They both have harmed each other in a sense, which would be breaking the law. How does society define what liberties humans should have? To harm others is wrong by most western civilizations standards. Laws should limit the freedom of people to non-physically harming actions. Besides that though, the government should strive to suppress verbal actions that harm people in the general sense. For instance, racial slurs

Ksenia Benz 17/4/12

Introduction to Philosophy

are a very common and obvious form of verbal abuse. They cause the general public offence, especially to those who are in that racial group. The government should limit peoples freedom to use such language because it is generally perceived as harmful language, for as stated in Philosophy: The Basics, Most governments restrict the freedom of individuals to some extent (2). The governments limits on speech though should stop there, like Philosophy says, A mark of a totalitarian regime is the absence of free expression. If they limit anything besides what is generally perceived as harmful (which can be defined by court decisions and established laws) they then begin to take away the rights of free speech (2). A limit, for example, on a political magazine that writes against the established government would be against the magazines right to free press. Besides that, the magazine may be showing a better way of governing that would be better for the people. If what they wrote was taken as harmful they wouldnt be able to profit society. In a sense the law would then be harming the people. Limiting speech also causes people to live in fear because it makes the people fell a sense of doubt in themselves and their abilities. Imagine if humans had had much of their free thought stopped over time. The advancement of depends on humans creativity that has so far generally been let free according to what is defined as liberty without harming others. When things to control are put on the human mind and its right to free expression, creativity is limited also. The advancement of civilization is dependent on free creativity and the ability to demonstrate it. This freedom of creativity then causes people to be too cautious towards what they can and cant do, which creates some fear towards both the government and their own creativity. Also among the adverse effects of limiting freedom is the need then for the society to benefit the members. The necessity for freedom over much of history has

Ksenia Benz 17/4/12

Introduction to Philosophy

been created when the society begins limiting the benefits its members receive. Take for instance the people of Ireland. The British Government influenced a great deal of hard time on the people, including the loss of half the population in the Potato Famine. Because the people did not feel they were receiving a fair deal by being under the governments control, they decided that they needed a freedom from it. Were they to have lived a better life, they would never have needed to be out of some elses control. All in all, the governments responsibility when creating and enforcing laws is to stop people from harming themselves and others, and that is all. The laws should be in place to keep people from harming others simply because a majority of the people in western cultures feel this ideal is important. No true definitions exist to define what is harm and not, so it is the responsible of each government to decide what the people feel is harm and then write the laws according to their wishes. The governments job is to work towards preserving its people and working for the people, not to act as on its own behalf. In that respect then it must write laws according to the peoples wishes so that it fits into its own definition. When the government of any body doesnt act in the interest of its members, the members will react in order to get their freedom from its control. A major challenge to a lot of these theories both for negative and positive concepts is the argument that asks if there is any distinction at all. Gerald MacCallum argues that that there is no need to distinguish between negative and positive liberty and that liberty is just one basic concept. His definition of liberty is similar to a triadic function and statements about freedom can be formulated to show that it can fit into the above form of liberty. The differences arise in disagreements about what counts as these variables. The distinction between them is therefore false according to him (3). As a result, we can see that there are many arguments over the concept of

Ksenia Benz 17/4/12

Introduction to Philosophy

liberty which fall under the principal strands of thought. Liberty is such a complex subject that it is difficult to make a definite statement on what the correct concept of it should be or how many there are exactly. Personally, I feel most comfortable with the idea that there are negative and positive aspects to freedom and the fact that liberty may consist in both the opportunity to have it and the exercise of it. To have a proper concept of the idea of liberty therefore it is necessary to take into account all these views.

Bibliography: 1. Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty", in Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford University Press, 1969. 2. Warburton, Nigel. (2004) Philosophy: The Basics. Routledge. 3. Miller, David (ed), (1991), Liberty, Oxford University Press, Oxford.