Home » Public » Trans Political Issues » Isaiah Berlin - Two Concepts of Liberty
| Isaiah Berlin - Two Concepts of Liberty [message #57421] |
Sun, 03 May 2009 14:10 |
 Capucine 
Messages: 210
Registered: October 2007 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sherri-Ann,
Here's a short discussion of Isaiah Berlin's Oxford University Lecture in 1958. I wrote my thoughts after reading it. This lecture addresses the ideas of many of the main actors of the Frankfurt school, so I thought that you could find it interesting.
I just discovered these notes which date back to January of this year.
Capucine
Isaiah Berlin's 'Two Concepts of Liberty' (1958)
Liberty, or freedom, is the prime need of humanity after air, water and food. It is dubious whether the supply of even those basics can be assured to sustain life, if freedom of the individual is not present. Liberty for me has two aspects, that of the body and that of the mind. It is easy for others to control another person's body, but much more difficult to influence the mind. Nobody can make you think in any particular way. However, they can force your body to make actions you would much rather not.
However, this is not the twin aspects of liberty that Berlin refers to. He focuses on the physical, rather than the mind. His concern is with the actions which are and are not permitted. He does not take into account the basis in reason for the morality that he supports.
1/9/09
Liberty can only refer to an individual, not to a collective. Here Berlin is not specific. He could well be referring to 'society' as well as individuals. I understand that he's a socialist. Hence he has a built-in bias towards the collective. However, he criticized the 'Positive' liberty concept, due to its misuse by many political movements. This tendency was initiated by Rousseau, practiced by the Jacobins in a major bloodletting throughout Europe. Later, influenced by the French Revolution, most liberal thinkers adopted some form of 'Positive' liberty attitudes, not the least of which was the spirit of Universal Military Service, which lead to the catastrophe of the First World War. Subsequent to that, the NSDAP and the Bolchovics applied a combination of Kantian altruism and positive liberty to slaughter people in the tens of millions.
The concept of 'Negative' liberty, as described by Berlin, is the basis of Individual Rights – Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – found in the US Constitution. The recognition of the individual's right to act as he thinks fit, so long as this does not involve coercion or fraud over another person. Mill's Harm rule fits well with this concept. However, Mill had some hangups which made exceptions of certain thought processes and limited the concept of free speech. Both these restrictions are of course completely unacceptable.
First, one must admit that each human must be allowed to think any way he may think appropriate. There can be no limits. The expression of those thought in words, whether written or spoken, equally cannot be limited, except to the extent that they break the rule of coercion or fraud. A false statement leading to the harm of another person is the equivalent of fraud, even if it is made purely out of meanness or revenge without profit motives.
Secondly, no economic activity can be considered to do anyone else harm, unless it is undertaken obliging the other party to participate through coercion, as through a government monopoly, or similar situation. Few individuals ever have the power to coerce. If they do, it is through their government, the entity which retains the sole right to use force within society. Government coercion is as evil as that of any individual.
1/16/09
Berlin sees freedom or liberty as two distinct concepts. In his opinion they do cover every possible aspect of the meaning of either of these words. One probably has to start from the realization that one can be free to do something or free from somebody or a threat. These are opposite concepts. Perhaps even being the choice between liberty and security. One can only have one at a time. A choice has to be made between them.
Berlin expresses his distinction as Positive and Negative Freedoms. The Negative parallels the idea of "free to" and the Positive the "free from". However, the Positive is much more complicated and almost sinister, compared to the Negative.
Negative freedom is simple. Everything is permitted. It is up to the person to act. Limits are imposed, ideally voluntarily, through a healthy moral code. In most societies, this is reinforced by the law, which implies the use of force, if its provisions are not complied with. This is then an artificial restraint on freedom. The problems here begin where the moral code is flawed. An anti-life moral code will create damaging restriction on the healthy development of the individual person. A wide freedom to act depends therefore on a good understanding of the needs of the human to enhance his life.
Positive freedom has to be achieved by effort. At its simplest, it is a question of overcoming the restraints of nature through will power or technology. Examples are stretching of the mind and body to achieve a goal, as well as the use of an internal combustion engine to move faster than possible with one's body alone. However, this effort has to come from oneself without any aid from others to be termed freedom. Fundamentally Positive freedom is a matter of using one's brain. One is free to act, hopefully. To determine one's goals requires one to think. By analysis and thought, one can establish one's ethical code, or road map for one's life. One's values necessary for the advance of one's life will become the basis of all decisions.
Berlin views an aspect of this latter concept, which can lead to anomalies. Certainly everyone is free to express their opinions and ideas freely. There can never be any restriction on that point. Equally every listener is entitled to reject the words of another and disagree. So long as the disagreement remains on a "live and let live" basis there is no problem, but if the disagreement is not permitted, then the Negative freedom of the listener has been limited arbitrarily.
Rousseau's argument justifying the enforcement of the "General Will" has opened the door to this abuse of people's freedom to reject other's ideas. Rousseau rejected in fact the concept that each person is separate and individual, having the Right to his own views irrespective of the majority's opinion. He maintained that each person was only an element of society as a whole, and therefore subject to the Will of the majority. Hence he advocated the dictatorship of the majority. Ideally each individual should be free from interference by the majority so long as he does not commit any act of violence or fraud.
Berlin does not discuss an important issue, which is of vital impact on the individual – who is to be free, the Individual or the State, Tribe, Group, or Family. He appears to be assuming that it is the State, who has full freedom to act, and which seeks to secure freedom from threats from other States. The individual has minimum Negative freedom and precious little Positive freedom. Each individual is expected to sacrifice himself for the benefit of the State.
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 19 17:12:56 PDT 2012
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01542 seconds
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
