Is_There_Only_One_Concept_of_Freedom_

2495 words Introduction. Lord Acton wrote: ‘Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end’ Heywood argues that in Western liberal societies a high political value has been put on liberty. Many philosophers have tried to posit an answer to the question; is there only one concept of freedom' (I will use freedom and liberty interchangeably) This essay critically explores the question with references to Berlin and his theory presented in “Two Concepts of Liberty”. Argued one of the most important works in political philosophy, according to Carter . His famous distinction between negative and positive liberty as two separate concepts marked a new era in political philosophy. Therefore, it is important to question why the distinction was significant and still is today ttracted attention in 1969 when it was written' Was it because it was innovative and original' Or was it simply because the paper was an appealing philosophical reflection of the ideological differences in the Cold War, taking place at the time' The New Oxford American Dictionary defines liberty as; ‘The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.’ NOAD posit a fairly broad definition of liberty, as opposed to the philosophers I critically will explore. The limits will be put on political liberty and not economic liberty or any other kind. First I will reveal what liberty is according to the major different political views and how these will appear visible in Berlin’s theory. Second, Berlin’s negative and positive concepts of liberty will be presented and examine. He argues that negative freedom is freedom from external interference, whereas positive freedom is freedom to achieve one’s desired goal. Third, MacCallum however, argues that two definitions of freedom is misleading, as a substitute he suggests a single ‘value-free’ concept; ‘x is free from y to do z’. He offers a critical perspective of Berlin’s theory, suggestible more plausible today. Although MacCallum’s concept appears more appealing it still lack important explanation of the Berlin’s positive concept. The Fourth part will therefore examine the positive concept further in terms of its 3 main ideas of effective freedom, autonomy and political participation. Swifts critique on Berlin makes it clear how difficult it is to reach a single concept of liberty, appealing to the majority . However, Berlin’s two concepts reflect the basic values of the contra sides of the Cold war, the western liberal system against the totalitarian. Berlin’s essay was written in the midst of the Cold War, thus the importance and relevance of the two concepts is more accurate during the 50’ and 60’, whereas MacCallum’s theory is significantly more plausible in the contemporary pursuit of a perfect definition of freedom. Fifthly I will suggest the classical view as a plausible theory still applicable today because of it’s broad scope. Finally, in the conclusion it will emerge a suggestion that Berlin’s argument is no longer plausible and therefore, a more objective definition is required to enable maximum individual freedom. (1) Historical ideologies No scholar has successfully defined liberty in the history of ‘western political thought’. The degree of essential minimum freedom has long been a controversial debate among political philosophers. Often related to the different views of social relations and basic values. One could argue that one’s individual liberty is a foundation to health and happiness. The pessimistic side, originated from the thoughts of Hobbes, argues against Locke’s perspective on freedom where minimum of state intervention is desirable to gain maximum freedom . Mill, Spencer, Constant and Humboldt support the pessimistic, classic liberal tradition, they all defend Berlin’s political concept of negative liberty . Constant puts a large emphasise on the liberty of ‘religion, opinion, expression and property’ . Critique of the negative concept tend to defend the positive concept of liberty, some famous political philosophers supporting this concept are; Rousseau, Marx, Hegel, and T.H. Green, would on the other hand argue the opposite; absence of interference, by any kind, is optimal for individuals. It clearly demonstrates that different sides have been taken since some of the philosophers, like Hobbes, goes back to the 17th century . However, Berlin was arguably the first philosopher to distinguish positive and negative freedom. (2) Berlin –Negative and positive freedom. ‘Can individuals or groups achieve positive freedom through political action' And if so, is the positive concept of freedom a political concept'’ (Carter xxx) Many have argued the positive concept rather fits in to psychology and not political philosophy. Berlin’s famous distinction between negative and positive freedom is unique and challenges the classical theories of freedom. Berlin describes negative freedom as what a person is able to do/or be without any interference by another individual. Thus, it can only be reduced by external factors. The clearest expression of negative freedom appears in freedom of choice, civil liberty and privacy. Berlin points out that, liberty in the negative sense has no elements of opportunity at all. The restraint is only a prevention from reaching the goal that otherwise would be achievable with one’s exciting resources. If another individual prevent me from doing what I could otherwise do, I’m not free. Positive liberty may be understood as one's having a role in choosing who governs the society of which one is a part. Berlin defines it as ‘self-mastery’, related to individual goals and achievement. Even though they may appear confusing, a simple way to distinguish them is negative ‘freedom is freedom from something (external power)’ whereas positive freedom is ‘freedom to do something (internal power)’ . As opposed to the negative concept where individual freedom is in the core, Rousseau’s argues in his theory of freedom, for positive freedom, by suggesting that individual freedom is ‘achieved through participation in the process whereby one's community exercises collective control over its own affairs in accordance with the ‘general will’ . The power role in the positive definition appears visible when asking the question, who is the master controlling your basic freedom' Berlin associates that kind of freedom with democracy, to have power of one’s life and decisions. The positive concept is highly significant, although Berlin supports the negative liberty and describes the positive as a base for autocratic rule. He suggests that in a free democratic society the freedom of one may interfere with another’s. Therefore, negative liberty has to be prioritised in order to enable individuals to reach their goals, according to Berlin. The positive liberty appears to be more appealing to the lefties whereas the negative concept attracts the right wing, including classical liberals. However, the difference between negative and positive liberty is very fine which shows that the two concepts very much depend on each other. Not everyone agrees with Berlin and MacCallum has further developed this thought of a triadic concept. (3) MacCallum and the triadic concept. "Whenever the freedom of some agent or agents is in question, it is always freedom from some constraint or restriction on, interference with, or barrier to doing, not doing, becoming, or not becoming something" . Critical of the two separate concepts, MacCallum presents a single triadic concept based on Berlin’s two concepts of freedom, positive and negative freedom. All liberty is subjective and therefore impossible to put in two different categories, every case of freedom can be portrayed in both concepts of freedoms. MacCallum has therefore suggested the concept of ‘x is free from y to do/be z’. X refers to the agent, y the limitation and z the goal. Heywood writes; ‘This suggests that the apparently deep question ‘are we free'’ is meaningless, and should be replaced by a more complete and specific statement about what we are free from, and what we are free to do.’ The objective concept has no value it selves, it can more be seen as a tool to evaluate liberty in its many forms. Even though Berlin’s concept is misleading, according to MacCallum, it raises an argumentation how freedom can be valued. MacCallums objective concept is easier to apply, however the evaluating part is missing in MacCallums work . (4) The time Berlin wrote the essay. Berlin posits that positive liberty has been used to manipulate people in a society. He also argues that this abuse of liberty limits individual’s negative liberty. Swift disagree with Berlin when he says that all positive liberty leads to totalitarianism, instead he suggests that there are tree different ideas of positive freedom, arguing against negative freedom as a single concept, ‘formal v. effective freedom’, doing what one wants v. autonomy’, ‘freedom beginning where politics ends v. freedom as political participation’ . This straightens Heyman’s argument that positive freedom is complex and need a further discussion to be valuable. It is accurate to say that positive liberty can be abused but not always. Carter argues that it is important to remember how close the nature of positive liberty lies to the nature of autonomy. This needs a more narrow examination in order to really understand why Berlin suggested two separate definitions of liberty. In ‘What Wrong with Negative Liberty'’ Taylor posits the important distinguish between autonomy and freedom to do what one wants. He argues that autonomy involves ‘self-awareness, self-understanding, moral discrimination, and self-control’ . Autonomy is thus someone’s opportunity to act according to their own values whereas when one is doing what one ones, he/she is still under control of someone else. Increasing someone’s effective freedom doesn’t necessarily means increasing their autonomy. Berlin famously argues that people will be forced to be free, by the state imposing rights on you. However, Swift argues that all conceptions of positive freedom do not necessarily have to lead to totalitarianism. Berlin's argument that nothing good can come out of autonomy is misleading according to Swift . Promoting peoples autonomy does not necessary have to be a bad thing, instead it can provide people with information so they can decide for themselves what is preferable for them. Furthermore, he suggests that it is wrong to identify rationality with freedom. The internal obstacles in positive freedom do not have to interfere with rational action. What one conceder rational could be what another define as irrational. To realize that there can be internal obstacles does not mean that anyone else is a better judge then one selves. This important distinction is what Berlin discusses in terms of positive liberty and its danger if it is used in the wrong way. Very much related to the time Berlin wrote the essay in. He argues Berlin’s notion of ‘being forced to be free’ is a justification of totalitarianism . Carter defines it as the‘ fate of a permanent and oppressed minority’. As members of a democracy this minority is plausibly free, however, the undermining position of the minority does not enable the same conditions for self-control as the majority can enjoy. Carter further more posit the condition of oppression of the society as a whole, including the majority. This can appear when the society is seen as a collective organism, controlled by its wise and rational governors. Appearing to be in the position of ruling the whole society with authoritarian policies. . Heyman has suggested that the many vague arguments Berlin posit appears confusing for us today due to their reflection of the ‘ideological circumstances of the 1950s . Carter declares historical examples of this when he describes the ‘totalitarian dictators of the twentieth century’ during the Cold war, standing against the liberal west’s ‘true champions of freedom’. Where Heyman argued that the Soviet Union was one of the countries approaching the people with a left minded totalitarian policy. Thus, Berlin’s concept of positive freedom Berlin derives from the view of many liberal thinkers during the Cold War when times where different from today and individual autonomy was oppressed by a higher power, not their own higher self, which is considered more desirable by many. Heyman writes: ‘With the passing of the Cold War, it may be easier to understand the relationship between positive and negative liberty in our political tradition’. (5) The classical view Heyman continues to argue for the classical view as a more accepted approach to the concept of freedom. The classical concept of liberty is suggestible more accepted in terms of the broad system including both negative and positive freedom, ‘exercised by both individual and the community, and always regulated by law . It is like MacCallum said, ‘highly misleading to only consider one of the two concepts. However, the alternatives are more or less as subjective. Therefore, the classical view appears superior to the others I have discussed in the course of this essay. Mill wrote: ‘The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way’ (On Liberty, p.72). From Berlin’s preferable perspective, negative freedom, we are able to act without any interference from external factors. From a defender of positive freedom, Mill was aiming at the goals one can achieve without being interfered by internal or manipulating constraints. MacCallum, on the other hand would include them both and argue that ‘pursuing our own good’ is possible if we are free from interference, negative or positive, to achieve our goal, ‘in our own way’. Whether you put Berlin, xxx or MacCallum’s glasses on, it is clear that a desirable goal is agreed. Thus, a suggested single concept would be the most rational standpoint. There are quite a few disagreements on that. (6) Conclusion. Many liberal thinkers as well as conservatives would agree that in order to keep as many doors open for the individual and maximize his/her liberty in a society there needs to be an objective and broad definition of freedom . Like I pointed out in the introduction, MacCallum has an advantage in his theory since it is strictly value-free. Not every freedom is different, nevertheless, they are all subjective and therefore in need of an objective theory (MacCallum, G. ‘Negative and Positive Freedom’, in Miller, D. Liberty, p.102); ‘x is free from y to do y or z’. ‘The starting point of this essay has been to assess whether there is only one concept of freedom. After a deeper discussion with reference to Berlin and his opponents I suggest one single answer to the introducing question. Very much depends on the political implications and what is defined as valuable liberty. However, the classical view is plausible to the extent that it keeps most doors open for the individual to decide which path to take to reach the desirable goal. It is misleading to simply take one standpoint since it gives a very narrow point of view to a very broad concept. Lord Acton wrote: ‘Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end’ Bibliography Berlin, Isaiah, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ in David Miller ed Liberty, 1991 Carter, Ian, Positive and Negative Liberty, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Heyman, SJ, "Positive and Negative Liberty" (1992) 68 Chicago-Kent L Rev 81) Heywood, Andrew, Key concepts in Politics, 2000, p.130 "Liberty” in: New Oxford American Dictionary 2nd edition © 2005 by Oxford University Press, Inc. MacCallum, Negative and Positive Freedom, The Philosophical Review,1967 Swift, Adam, Political Philosophy, A beginners guide for students and politicians, Part 2 Liberty, p.51-68 Taylor, What wrong with Negative Liberty', in Miller, D. Liberty, p.146