From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Philosophy > Political Philosophy -Freedom
Freedom
There are generally 2 types of freedom.
Negative Freedom
- Often described as ‘Freedom From’
- Includes freedom from the law, slavery, hunger, thirst, etc.
- Example of the spinning bicycle wheel;
- The bicycle is free to revolve around its axis. When you apply the brakes, you are forcing the wheel to stop.
- This is analogous to Negative freedom. When we restrict someone’s negative freedom, then we are forcing/coercing them to act in a certain way.
- Emphasis placed on Negative Freedom in liberal politics, ie by Mapping out a private sphere for the individual that he can act within without interference from the state. This was the view of John Stuart Mill.
- It would not be justifiable for the state to interfere with any action that is within the individuals ‘private sphere’.
- Mill argues the only time government can limit a person’s freedom is when their actions begin to harm others. The Harm Principle
- This begs the question, what counts as harm? Pain to an average person is harm, whereas it is a pleasure to a masochist.
- Liberals stress the importance of protecting the individuals liberty from the state by mapping out this private sphere of self-concerning actions.
- Conservatives argue that an excess of a persons liberty can be a risk, and much prefer a supportive social context in which people can realise their potential.
- Characterised by Hobbes as a person’s ‘Liberty’ and the absence of restraint.
- Defined Law as the form of constraint which puts the brakes on a person’s negative freedom.
- Law in this sense is an evil, as it always strives to limit a person’s sphere of action. Hobbes thought that the unlimited freedoms of people are too great a threat, and so it seems that law is a necessary evil.
Positive Freedom
- Many philosophers are against the idea that Negative freedom is the kind of freedom we should strive to increase. Positive freedom is a far more important goal.
- Characterised as a person’s freedom to act and achieve.
- Often described as ‘Freedom To’
- Freedom to hold and express an opinion, to get married, to have a good job and earn a good living, etc.
- Example of the spinning bicycle wheel;
- The wheel is designed to work in a certain way and carry out certain functions, such as move the rider forward.
- If for some reason the wheel cannot perform this function, then its positive freedom is reduced.
- The positive freedom of the wheel is how well it is able to carry out its purpose.
- Emphasis placed on increasing an individual’s Positive Freedom in left-wing Conservative politics.
- The law should promote social order and cohesion, as these things all lead to positive freedoms.
- Sometimes, to increase positive freedom, a certain amount of negative freedom needs to be restricted. **Children forced to go to School, etc.
- Isaiah Berlin pointed out that positive freedom can be used as a weapon by the government to justify all types of unjust coercion. Such would include coercing you on the grounds that they are increasing your freedom. He does not attempt to show that positive freedom is a bad thing; he just tries to show that history has shown that it can be abused.
Constitutive and Regulative Rules
There are two types of rules. Constitutive and Regulative rules;
Constitutive Rules
- Corresponds to the Positive freedom aspect of the law
- In a game of football, the rules that define the way the game should be played are Constitutive. They define the purpose of the games mechanics, for instance, each team must attempt to score goals, includes a description of the field of play, etc.
Regulative Rules
- Corresponds to the Negative freedom aspect of the law.
- In football, the regulative rules would be the rules which stop the players from doing certain things, for instance, the players must not foul the other team, they must not be violent on the pitch, and generally restrict what the player can do on the field. They also define appropriate punishments for breaches of these rules.
Rousseau argues that increasing freedom of an individual can lead to eventual decrease of his positive freedom.
- Examples: Person becoming addicted to alcohol and nicotine. They are no longer as free as they were before as they are burdened with this addiction.
- Recent smoking ban in enclosed places will mean smokers will have less freedom than non-smokers.
- An example from politics would be a party that offers more freedom to the voters such as reduced tax, but are actually corrupt and use the same methods and before once they get into power. This leads to a reduced freedom for the citizens
Rousseau says that citizens should be made aware of such possible losses of freedom, and then they will be able to decide whether to accept this coercion or not.
Rights
What does it mean to have a right? And what rights do we have?
There was a Universal Declaration of human rights after the WW2 atrocities to try and assert the very basic rights that everybody has, regardless of situation.
- Sometimes we think of rights in the ‘possession’ context. We possess certain rights
- Even Locke talked about rights by putting them in the context of ‘property. He is quoted as saying; “the reason mean enter society is the protection of their property”, and by property he doesn’t just mean physical objects. He is also talking about a person’s rights.
- When rights are not seen as a possession, they can be viewed upon as an individual’s ability to be able to act in a society.
Hohfeld described 4 types of rights;
- I have a liberty to so something if I am not prevented by some duty from doing it.
- I have a claim-right if there is someone else who has a duty to protect something for me. Such rights would include that everybody has a right to be protected by the state, and even from the state. It is the states duty to protect it’s citizens, so the citizens claim a right on the protection.
- If I have been designated responsibility by the state or the law, then I have a power.
- If I have immunity, then I am free from obligation to submit to the legally assigned power of that territory. Foreign Diplomats have immunity.
There are philosophers who believe and maintain that unless a right is enforceable, then the right is not meaningful. There is no point, for instance, in claiming a right to live a free secure lifestyle in a war zone like Iraq. There is no point in claiming a right to get money back that you have loaned out if there are no measures in place to prevent the person from keeping the loan.
How do we balance the rights of the individual against the common good?
- Some liberties and claims should be recognized and enshrined in the law.
- As such, cases for changes in the law are often described as an assumed moral right.
- Example would be a terminally ill patient who wants to die. A case could be argued along the lines of rights to life a right to death.
(unfinished)
Also See
Comments
These notes are aimed at A Level Philosophy students for the module on 'Political Philosophy'.
Originally written by coldplasma on TSR Forums.
