Isaiah Berlin's notion of Positive and Negative Freedom

[Avocado]

For many years I have jumped sides on this issue, on what is best for society and the individual.

As I have become older, I am convinced that Positive freedom is the only practical solution in civilised society.

I base this on my own observation and from my position on human nature that 'man' is selfish and for society to be harmonious we need regulation to ensure equality and fairness. I understand this is controversial but was interested in finding out what others thought.

[Luís Henrique]

Some of the possible answers that are not listed in the poll...


Both
Neither
The distinction doesn't make sence


Luís Henrique

[Avocado]

Fair enough. I thought that if one could not find an accurate option then they would simply ignore - that is what I do. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Luís Henrique]

Fair enough. I thought that if one could not find an accurate option then they would simply ignore - that is what I do. Thanks for pointing that out.

You are welcome.

And I dislike the distinction. In the end, as I have objected to an OI poster, private property is not actually different from social welfare. It "takes a village" to protect one's property against the mob.

Luís Henrique

[Dean]

Isaiah Berlin has some interesting ideas and he really accumulates a lot of knowledge in his papers, but I have to say that reinforcing the distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" liberties is absurd at best, and dangerous at worst.

I'll briefly break it down.

Negative liberties refer to rights "not to be controlled by external forces." Positive liberties generally refer to property rights, or rights "bestowed" on individuals (i.e. a contract). In general, negative liberties are "irrevocable" rights to your own body, and positive liberties are anything you acquire or enjoy outside of that.

The fact is that the human being is not a distinct entity from the material world. In broad terms, human beings need all sorts of material to survive at all - food, shelter, water, air. If you cannot survive, it is meaningless to have rights to your own body.

Private ownership of food and water resources routinely lead to deaths. But what if you don't die? What if you simply live miserably because you aren't guaranteed "positive liberties" to resources? The bigger question one should be asking is who has the right to exclude others from natural and social resources, and why?

[hatzel]

reinforcing the distinction between so-called "positive" and "negative" liberties

I sometimes doubt whether Berlin actually did this. I feel as though he used the concepts of 'positive' and 'negative' liberties simply to redefine (to some extent) the concept of liberty itself. This based on the fact that the 'outcome' of his distinction was to point out that liberals (and others) had historically neglected 'positive' conceptions of freedom, and instead sought wholly 'negative' conceptions, which he saw as inadequate. From that it appears to me that Berlin's conception of liberty (as a unified, 'true' liberty, rather than a choice between these two conceptions) included 'positive' elements alongside the 'negative,' and the point of his distinguishing between the two was simply to stress important connotations of the word 'liberty' that had often been overlooked, rather than to argue that they were fundamentally different.

Though I also feel that his suggestion that there exists a certain conflict between these two irreconcilable values (if we are to take them in their 'absolute' and 'total' forms, that is) intended to rule out the feasibility of liberty in its fullest sense, and still more so the possibility that it might already exist in contemporary liberal democracies. For that - amongst other things - I certainly commend him.

[Avocado]

I sometimes doubt whether Berlin actually did this. I feel as though he used the concepts of 'positive' and 'negative' liberties simply to redefine (to some extent) the concept of liberty itself. This based on the fact that the 'outcome' of his distinction was to point out that liberals (and others) had historically neglected 'positive' conceptions of freedom, and instead sought wholly 'negative' conceptions, which he saw as inadequate. From that it appears to me that Berlin's conception of liberty (as a unified, 'true' liberty, rather than a choice between these two conceptions) included 'positive' elements alongside the 'negative,' and the point of his distinguishing between the two was simply to stress important connotations of the word 'liberty' that had often been overlooked, rather than to argue that they were fundamentally different.

Though I also feel that his suggestion that there exists a certain conflict between these two irreconcilable values (if we are to take them in their 'absolute' and 'total' forms, that is) intended to rule out the feasibility of liberty in its fullest sense, and still more so the possibility that it might already exist in contemporary liberal democracies. For that - amongst other things - I certainly commend him.

I also found that his paper "Two Concepts of Liberty" was more or less a broader examination of possibilities in freedom.

It opened my eyes to an extent to the limitations of negative liberty. Do we simply help the junkie by giving him choice to do as he pleases, or do we step in restrict his options with an eye on a much better future and ultimately freeing themselves from a world of addiction?

It is difficult to choose, when deciding on someone's liberty - but the social costs in such cases in the main go beyond the individual: hence I am inclined to side on the Positive Freedom stance.