Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
General:
Immanuel Kant
John Locke
On Liberty is one of Mills most famous works and remains the one most read today.
In this book, Mill expounds his concept of individual freedom within the context of
his ideas on history and the state. On Liberty depends on the idea that society
progresses from lower to higher stages and that this progress culminates in the
emergence of a system of representative democracy. It is within the context of this
form of government that Mill envisions the growth and development of liberty.
Chapter I defines civil liberty as the limit that must be set on societys power over
each individual. Mill undertakes a historical review of the concept of liberty,
beginning with ancient Greece and Rome and proceeding to England. In the past,
liberty meant primarily protection from tyranny.
Over time, the meaning of liberty changed along with the role of rulers, who came to
be seen as servants of the people rather than masters. This evolution brought about a
new problem: the tyranny of the majority, in which a democratic majority forces its
will on the minority. This state of affairs can exercise a tyrannical power even outside
the political realm, when forces such as public opinion stifle individuality and
rebellion. Here, society itself becomes the tyrant by seeking to inflict its will and
values on others.
Next, Mill observes that liberty can be divided into three types, each of which must
be recognized and respected by any free society. First, there is the liberty of thought
and opinion. The second type is the liberty of tastes and pursuits, or the freedom to
plan our own lives. Third, there is the liberty to join other like-minded individuals for
a common purpose that does not hurt anyone. Each of these freedoms negates
societys propensity to compel compliance
Mills critics: everything I do may have results which will harm other human beings.
Mill:
Berlin
1) Liberty in general
b) Positive Liberty:
i) Positive liberty means the presence of control, self-directive INTERNAL
to the part of the agent. That means one must be able to control his own
destiny in his own interests. That means man wants his life and decisions
to depend on himself (internal), not on external forces, to being his own
master. 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?
(1) Be independent, free of control: but may I not be a slave to nature? This
dominant self is then variously identified with reason, with my 'higher nature', with
the self which calculates and aims at what will satisfy it in the long run, with my
'real', or 'ideal', or 'autonomous' self, or with my self 'at its best' which is then
contrasted with irrational impulse, uncontrolled desires, my 'lower' nature, the pursuit
of immediate pleasures, my 'empirical' or 'heteronomous' self 'higher' freedom: to
coerce men in the name of some goal
a) If freedom = unprevented from realizing ones desires, can one be more free
by desire fewer things?
i) Negative theorist says no. a salve is not free. Happy =/= free.
ii) Positive theorist says yes: salve is indeed free. Berlin: it is like cutting off
my wounded leg.
3) The tempo of sarastro:
a) Children are not salves because although they are coerced, they obey orders
given in their own interest. Similarly, subject of a true commonweal is not
salve because the common interest will include his own. (the tempo of
sarastro)
b) A rational judge will send you to prison because it is evidence that you have
not listened to your own inner reason, like a child, so you are not free of selfdirection, or permanently incapable of it.
4) How can a society be truly free?
a) The chief value for liberals of political positive rights (of participating in
government) is as means for protecting an ultimate value of negative liberty.
b) No society is free unless it is governed by two interrelated principles: (1) no
power but only rights can be absolute. (2) there are frontiers, not artificially
drawn, within which men should be inviolable
5) One concept of liberty:
a) American legal philosopher Gerald MacCallum (1967) put
Positive liberty
Freedom from
What is left to be free to do?
Maximum liberty in the absence of
external obstacles
More dangerous
Authoritarian (by ignoring others)
Easier for powers to manipulate by
giving the false impression to freedom I
will make you free
Negative liberty
Freedom to
Who is the master?
Presence of internal self-control/selfmastery
Less dangerous
Liberty Q
1. How have legal theorists tried to repair the defects of Bentham's
Utilitarianism? How successful are these attempts? (2014)
2. Describe Isiah Berlin's distinction between positive and negative liberty. Do
you think it a convincing distinction? Why? (2014)
3. What is liberty? Is Berlin's distinction of negative and positive concepts of
liberty correct? (2012)
4. 'The desire to be governed by myself, or at any rate to participate in the
process by which my life is to be controlled, may be as deep a wish as that of a
free area for action, and perhaps historically older. But it is not a desire for the
same thing. '
Isaiah Berlin, 'Two Concepts of Liberty,'
(1958)
Critically discuss. (2013)
Are the negative and positive concepts of liberty mutually exclusive, so that
people using them are talking past each other?
Can we capture both positive and negative liberty in X is (is not) free from y
to do (not do, become, not become) Z
Liberty and rights: is the idea of rights at its most basic better captured
by negative or by positive liberty?
What are rights? What is liberty? How, if at all, are right and liberties
related?
Does Isaiah Berlins distinction of Two Concepts of Liberty make sense?
Which concept of liberty, if any, does Berlin favour? Do you agree with
Berlin?