Negative Liberty, Positive Liberty and Republican Liberty - Essay Example

NEGATIVE LIBERTY, POSITIVE LIBERTY AND REPUBLICAN LIBERTY by Introduction The founding fathers of the American nation embedded notions of liberty in the constitution. In the Declaration of Independence therefore is written the words “we hold these truths to be true, that all are equal, that they have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” America can thus be considered a liberal state but what does liberalism really mean? Everyone claims to have the liberty or freedom to do as they desire but most often, these individuals do not really understand these terms. Furthermore, there are limits to the freedom people enjoy in case such freedom infringes on the rights of others or can harm others and prevent them from enjoying their civil liberties. Liberalism according to Berlin refers to “a collection of fundamental presuppositions or concepts that provide background constraints within which a certain kind of political life can take place.”1 There are many notions of liberalism as there are individuals with different interests such as egalitarianism, libertarianism and conservatism. For John Rawls, political liberalism refers to “plurality of reasonable but incompatible comprehensive doctrines resulting from normal exercise of human reason within the framework of free institutions of constitutional democratic regime.”2 From the concept of liberalism Kant distinguished two concepts of liberty which were defended by Isaiah Berlin in the 1950s and 60s. These include: positive liberty and negative liberty. A third type of liberty called Republican liberty was developed further to reconcile the two extremes. The aim of this essay is to discuss Republican liberty and Positive liberties are political theories and whether Negative liberty is an analytical concept or a political theory. First, negative liberty will be defined then positive and republican liberty to understand what they entail. Secondly, the concept of political philosophy will be discussed to evaluate whether these liberties are part of it. And finally, the political liberalism will be discussed and its criticisms and a brief summary of main issues given. Negative Liberty Negative liberty as defined by Berlin refers to the “absence of obstacles, barriers and constraints.”3 It means from freedom from restraint. If an individual has various options at his/her disposal then he/she has the freedom to choose whatever activity he wishes to engage in hence is totally free. However, if there is a human agent preventing the individual from performing a certain activity, then we can say the individual has negative liberty. As such, negative liberty focuses on what we are prevented from doing, rather than on what we are able to do. For example, the government may put laws in place to guide certain actions such as smoking or economic policies such as taxation which prevent an individual from doing what he desires to do. This in Berlin’s words is negative liberty. In this sense, the individual is coerced to choose certain options and not others.4 However, if the individual is unable to pursue his goals due to lack of capacity; for example, lack of skills or disability to do a certain task then his freedom has not been denied. However, if the incapacity is a result of deliberate acts of other human beings, then his political freedom has been infringed resulting into negative liberty. Though negative liberty entails being prevented from doing what one wishes to do, Berlin makes it clear that it is not just being prevented from doing what one desires, but from doing whatever one might desire to do.5 As such, there is no relation between one’s liberty or freedom and one’s desires; negative liberty is not desire-dependent. It must be within the capacity of that individual to achieve his desires in absence of any interference. This means therefore, that the action a person does not result in freedom; rather it is the opportunity to be able to do such actions that gives the individual freedom. For example, if I have several opportunities to advance my career but I prefer to remain at my current position and do nothing towards that end, then I cannot claim that I do not have freedom but if I remained there because I was not given the opportunity to advance or obstacles were placed in my way to prevent me from advancing, then my liberty would have been infringed. For Day freedom is not to be confused with happiness because nothing can stop a free person from being unhappy or an unfree person from being happy.6 If one is contented with whatever activity he is doing, it does not mean he has freedom. It may be that one has no other option hence has got used to his/her situation and internalised it hence contented and happy. Day thus contends that the happy person might feel free, but whether they are free is another matter. Negative liberty can be infringed to some extent if it is inevitable. For example, if there is a concern of security in the country as a whole, then individuals may be prevented from walking late at night or subjected to searches for sake of security of all. It may also be infringed for fairness or justice sake so that all citizens can enjoy maximum liberty.7 However, a government that imposes many restraints on liberty is not justified as this is tantamount to being authoritarian whether it is a liberal government or not. Positive Liberty While negative liberty is absence of barriers, constraints and interferences, positive liberty is the opposite as it entails presence of control or possibility of acting. For Berlin it is the freedom to form and actualize a rational and reasonable plan of life.8 This is based on the fact that human beings are rational creatures able to make choices reasonably and be responsible for the choices they make or the consequences of their actions. While negative liberty is concerned with the area within which a person should be left to act without interference by other persons, positive liberty is concerned with the source of interference. It answers the question, “what, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?”9 Interference on negative liberty is from external sources (other human agents) while interference on positive liberty is from internal sources. In the state of nature, men are just like animals hence aim at immediate gratification of their passions. Satisfying these passions may also mean having positive liberty but this is not appropriate. As such, it is assumed that there are wiser men to advice those less informed on their best interests or the goals to pursue. These individuals are considered more rational than others and more capabable of moral action hence have a ‘higher’ self which is the true self. Their duty is to force those with ‘lower’ self-those who are irrational , have unreflective desires, and pursue immediate pleasures to be free.10 That is why theorists like Plato in recommended that citizens be ruled by a philosopher king as he is wise and has knowledge of the truth. Such a king has the best interest of all at heart hence can coerce them for their own good and for the good of the community. Positive liberty is associated with the collective control hence individual control is achieved through participation in the community affairs. This is in accordance with Rousseau’s concept of the ‘general will’ whereby citizens are forced to be free for the good of all through a social contract. Berlin likens the society with an organism which has a brain that controls its main parts. Each part must work in collaboration with others for the system to work hence achieving social solidarity. Individual is controlled by what the brain, in this case, the tribe, society, church, state or collective self.11 However, there is a slippery slope in this notion of liberty. As a sovereign is deedmed to know what the citizens need better than they know it themselves, he may claim a great deal more and impose his choices on them thus ignoring the actual wishes of men or societies and bully, oppress, torture them in the name, or on behalf, of their "real" selves.12 This is on the basis that individuals are incapable of deciding what is good fo themselves due to ignorance or lack of knowledge. However different views the two concepts of liberty represent, the two are not distinct but just two sides of the same coin. Negative freedom is freedom from interference by other human agents while positive liberty is being in control of individual interests and giving up some interests for the higher good of the community. Negative liberty does not entertain any interference by external forces and concentrates on the individual while positive liberty concerns the collectives and individual is just part of the system. There have been attempts to devise a third way by individuals such as Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit. This third way is referred as Republican liberty. Republican Liberty Contrary to negative liberty which views freedom as non interference, republican liberty views freedom as non-domination. By controlling some liberty for the sake of greater good (positive liberty) some groups may become dominated and oppressed by others yet seem free. For example, the minority groups may be considered free since they are part of a community that has decided on what is best for them but which is in favour of the majority thus neglecting the wishes of the minority.13 This means the minority are not free after all. Pettit and Skinner enlarge the concept of negative liberty to include in addition to non-interference, the conditions necessary to ensure interference does not occur such as the use of constitutional safeguards.1415 If such safeguards are present, no matter the type of government in place, negative liberty is guaranteed. This kind of freedom however, is regarded as republican liberty by Pettit. Negative liberty in this sense does not make one a slave. In other wods, one is dominated by others in the name of serving his best interests. It is instead a kind of status enjoyed by the person by virtue of being a citizen. Every citizen enjoys equal protection under the law hence by being a citizen, one enjoys a great deal of freedom. It thus prevents a slave from being dominated by her master. Non-interference does not guarantee the slave would not be dominated but enshrining it in the constitution ensures slave is not dominated hence enjoy republican freedom. In this case, the slippery slope of positive freedom is avoided as the liberal-democratic institutions ensure non-oppression or non-domination. Political Theory Since the aim of this paper is to discuss if these types of liberty are political theories, it is only important to discuss what is meant by political theories. In his Two Concepts of Liberty, Berlin defines political theory as “a branch of moral philosophy, which starts from the discovery, or application, of moral notions in the sphere of political relations.”16 Political philosophy deals with the questions of ends as questions of means can be solved technically but the ends are highly controversial. The central question of politics for Berlin is the question of obedience and coercion which is hotly contested. The big question is; Why should I (or anyone) obey anyone else? Why should I not live as I like? Must I obey? If I disobey, may I be coerced? By whom, and to what degree, and in the name of what, and for the sake of what? These are the questions that political theories try to answer but the answers are as many as there are different view points. Since coercion means deprivation of freedom, then political theories strive to answer questions about freedom or liberty and in this case, negative and positive liberty and republican liberty as well. However, negative liberty only tells us when there has been infringement of liberty, regardless whether the infringement is justifiable hence may not qualify as a political theoryin John Rawls conceptions of political liberalism theory. Since the concepts in question have to do with liberty, then the political theory they fall under is liberalism. Liberalism in this case, is any political theory dedicated to promotion of leftish concerns.17 For Rawls, these are substantive and incompatible doctrines of political morality and include: egalitarianism, libertarianism and conservatism.18 The fundamental political values a liberal theory of justice is supposed to safegurard according to Rawls is freedom, equality and fairness.19 The liberal theorist ground their work on the idea of negative liberty hence other theorists use this idea to advance their theories through its criticisms. As such, republican and positive liberty are political theories as they are the ones who deal with questions of equality, justice and fairness and use negative liberty as basis of analysis. Negative liberty in this case does deal with issues of justice; that is, it does not deal with questions of whether infringement of freedom is justifiable, rather it is concerned with infringements such as of the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, among other freedoms.20 It is for the positive and republican liberty theorists to determine whether such infringements are justifiable. Negative liberty only tells us there should be no interference while positive liberty deals with the question of who or what interferes with liberty hence it is political in nature. Furthermore, negative freedom only makes sure there are opportunities available regardless of whether one excercises such opportunities or not.21 Another argument advanced by Taylor is that a theory of liberty must have an evaluative component or some way to determine obstacles since some obstacles carry more weight than others.22 However, negative liberty uses a neutral quantitavive approach thus cannot indicate if obstacle is justified or not. Provided there is an infringement, such should be removed but positive therists would try to find the cause of such infringements and whether they are justifiable depending on their effect. Negative liberty is also neutral between the various activities men pursue. Since rights do not interfere with liberty as they are entitlements, there is no conflict between liberty and equality. However, Dworkin would rather go deeper in determining whether there is a right to liberty, its content and where it is derived from.23 References Berlin,I. 1958. Two Concepts of Liberty, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berlin, I. 1969. Two Concepts of Liberty. In: I.Berlin. Four Essays on Liberty, London: Oxford University Press. Day, JP. 1970. On Liberty and the Real Will. Philosophy, 45: 177-192. Dworkin, R., 1977, Taking Rights Seriously, London: Duckworth. Pettit, P. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rawls, J. 2005. Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press. Skinner, Q. 2002. A Third Concept of Liberty, Proceedings of the British Academy, 117 (237): 237–268. Taylor, C. 1979. What’s wrong with Negative Liberty? In A. Ryan (ed). The Idea of Freedom Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More