The Arguments Concerning the Two Concepts of Liberty - Essay Example

?Running head: Positive and negative concepts of liberty Positive and negative concepts of liberty Insert Insert Insert Name February 21, 2011 Positive and negative concepts of liberty Introduction The concept of value pluralism was of a point of concern to the twentieth century philosopher Isaiah Berlin. The philosopher observed that the human ideals and morals that would be desirable for the smooth running of operations in a society might not be easily put into place (Thorsen, 2004, p.5). The divergent human values experienced in a given society often conflict with each other and the choice as to which of the values should be appropriate may not be easy to make. He argues out that the diversity that existed in the human values defines the origins of political theories that extend to today’s political set up. A critical examination of the possible approaches of dealing with the diverse human values in a society leads to two kinds of liberty namely positive and negative liberty (Thorsen, 2004, p.6). The two concepts of liberty were initially considered to be closely related but later appeared to be taking different destinations. There have been efforts by philosophers to examine the main differences that exist between positive and negative liberty. There has also been a debate on whether one concept of liberty is superior to the other or not. Some of the rights and freedoms that we enjoy are those that are imposed by some legislation. Some other freedoms are enjoyed simply because there are no legislations that are contrary to them. However, it is important to note that freedom is freedom and regardless of its nature, it can be hazardous if poorly misused or misinterpreted. Definitions By definition, positive freedom is that freedom that is guaranteed by some form of legislation. It refers to considering freedom as ‘the capacity for self rule, or self mastery especially on a collective level’ (Thorsen, 2004, p.6). In as much as the rule of democracy is allowed to prevail in a political setting, such laws will never be altered. The members of the public are fully entitled to such freedom. An example of positive freedom is the freedom for self-expression in a democratic system of government. The positive freedom will allow an individual even to choose the kind of government that can best serve the interest of the citizens of a nation. The other one could be the right to own a property. Every one is absolutely entitled to the right to own property by most of the legal provisions worldwide. On the other hand, negative freedom is that freedom we enjoy because no kind of legislation forbids it. They are the kinds of freedoms that allow an individual to carry out his or her private affairs independently (Thorsen, 2004, p.6). This calls for the moral and ethical codes of conducts in the individual. For instance, there are particularly no legal provisions on how and whether one should enjoy his/her Christmas holidays. There are no provisions either that a bereaved family should have a memorial ceremony in honor of their deceased member. The celebrations in such occasions are carried on simply on the basis that there are no restrictions. In other words, a negative freedom is enjoyed at an individual’s own discretion. Arguments on positive liberty The kinds of governments that existed in the olden times were mainly a hereditary system in which one would have predefined successor, usually a son. In such cases, the rulers were mainly opposed to the ruled and what existed was a system of two conflicting forces with the ruled being unable to confront the rulers. In fact, the rulers often used their hereditary authority as weapons against complains from their people (Mill, 1859). There was thus a need to reduce the powers of the rulers and set certain limits beyond which the people were protected against such humiliations. This called for the need for the establishments of rights and freedom of the citizens in a given government. The rulers were forced to submit to such provisions. Later on, a more serious approach would be adopted in which a legal document defining the set legislations on liberty would be used as one of the tools to support leadership and government. The opinions of the public would then be sought concerning the provisions on the document (Mill, 1859). It was argued that as long as the rulers abide by the fundamental provisions, and as long as the members of the public accepted these leaders as their representatives, the legal provisions would be efficient in dealing with the oppression that had been experienced. Positive freedom has been argued out by many people as being superior to the negative freedom. There is feeling that the fundamental rights and freedom of individuals in particular society should be properly laid down to ensure a peaceful coexistence of individuals in the society. There have been moves by various governments to have an established set of rules that define the rights and freedoms of the citizens. The proponents of positive freedom argue that owing to the diversity and the incompatibility that is witnessed in the human values, there should be a means of leveling the diversity through the use a set of freedoms. It is argued that if every individual were to be allowed to operate or act according to their will, there would be serious collisions on deeds. Berlin also expressed a fear that the conception of positive liberty could easily be misinterpreted to mean just the reverse as compared to negative liberty (Thorsen, 2004, p.22). The possibility of establishing a set of rules that define the required human values could easily lead to the abuse of such powers by egocentric political powers. There was then a move to consider the leaders not masters but as servants of the public, and who were now to be answerable to the public. This would lower the abuse of power by the rulers (Mill, 1859). Arguments on negative liberty Some philosophers such as John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) pointed out that what should be valued in the human life were the diversity, originality and uniqueness of every individual in the society. Every attempt to rationalize or harmonize a set of human values to be adopted by everyone in the society would be going far into the individual affairs. Mill insisted that there are choices that an individual should be allowed to make without any kind of restriction and that the desires of an individual’s heart are what should be given the first priority in life. He was reacting to the utilitarian arguments that certain aspects of life were not subject to changes and that every social problem could be identified once for all with the possible solutions defined explicitly. He suggests that the required kind of utility is that which is ‘grounded on the permanent interest of man as a progressive being’ (Mill, 1859). According to his arguments, establishing a kind of legislations concerning the human values or the associated social issues would assume some kind of finality that could be easily obtained. He advocated for the need to respect opinions for the various individuals and that if such regulations have to be imposed then they have to be subject to criticism and changes made wherever possible, according to the alterations that have occurred in other dimensions of life. He also criticized the teachings of socialists that arguably changed the social opinion to favor irrelevant reforms instead of considering a social opinion as a set of individual laws. There are those that are opposed to the explicit use of positive liberty. In as much as we can have a set of fundamental rights and freedom, there may be no defined boundary beyond which such a provision may fail to hold. It should be noted that the fact that a set of rights and freedom does not explicitly say we can perform an act then we are just not allowed to perform the act. More provisions would be required to specify its boundaries. Positive freedom has also been challenged for exerting a lot of burden on the government while cultivating laxity among the citizens. The idea has been used in many instances to push for freedoms that are only beneficial to the lazy members of the society to the disadvantage of the responsible hardworking members of the society. For instance, the provisions that entitle every member of the society to some standard of living may not be very practical. A situation will be witnessed in which certain individuals sit back and do not work to repay the aid that they receive from such programs. Other kinds of arguments hold that neither positive nor negative freedoms can independently hold. Instead, the existence of one effectively translates into the other. In particular, it is argued out that the negative freedom are considered important not in their own respect but because of how they help in developing positive liberty. Conclusions The arguments concerning the two concepts of liberty still hold. However, it is important to note that there needs to be a kind of balance between the uses of both kinds of liberty. The freedoms that we are entitled to enjoy, should have defined boundaries beyond which they may be reverted. A good approach would be to use an integrated system that applies both kinds of liberty. Mill had observed that the societies in which the liberties were not respected are never free regardless of the kind of leadership that it has. The kind of liberty that is to stand a test of time is that which allows one to do what is of his interest and in the manner that best fits him (Mill, 1857). This shall be exercised in as much as it does not interfere with the freedom of the others or their attempts to obtain such freedom. The individuals should have the minimum rights that are specified in a particular legislative document. They should also have a right to anything that such legislation does not touch on, unless otherwise stated. Too much reliance on the positive liberty would call for a very elaborate system of government that embraces all the social issues related to human life. The establishment of a standard constitution in such a case may not be very easy. On the other hand, overdependence on the use of negative freedom would call for a very weak government that does not fully exercise its authority. Even the very little legal provisions that are instituted may not be fully imposed on the citizens. In such cases, we often end up with a messy structure of government in which there are diverse powers. Thus, both the two kinds of liberty are essential in every society. Reference List Mill, J. S., 1859. On Liberty. (Online). Available from http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html [Accessed February 21, 2011]. Thorsen, D. E., 2004. On Berlin’s Liberal Pluralism: An examination of the political theories of Sir Isaiah Berlin, concentrated around the problem of combining value pluralism and liberalism. University of Oslo. (Online). Available from http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Iyvsv47gDA0J:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi%3D10.1.1.131.4104%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf+Isaiah+Berlin,+%28Oxford+2004%29+Liberty,+p+1-54&hl=en&gl=ke&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgIkdMW0KrNZdg-FMsGqzTNHHS4G8Nd5LWYOD-gEmgpkfUOV2igv_-X3p5ymGKeY_zdbo_zI_ToRObFf7H1KrFI2rasv2LXoCTEuVVNBbWZswKiOb4_N9OvPqhOjv80Oq8-fzfF&sig=AHIEtbQIvkY0pTsP_NdL_ARt95JxQQUlkA&pli=1 [Accessed February 21, 2011]. Read More