...Distinguish between negative freedom and positive freedom, and explain the significance to the state.{15} Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities. The idea of distinguishing between a negative and a positive sense of the term ‘liberty’ goes back at least to Kant, and was examined and defended in depth by Isaiah Berlin in the 1950s and ’60s. Discussions about positive and negative liberty normally take place within the context of political and social philosophy. They are distinct from, though sometimes related to, philosophical discussions about free will. Work on the nature of positive liberty often overlaps, however, with work on the nature of autonomy. As Berlin showed, negative and positive liberty are not merely two distinct kinds of liberty; they can be seen as rival, incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal. Since few people claim to be against liberty, the way this term is interpreted and defined can have important political implications. Political liberalism tends...
Words: 394 - Pages: 2
...Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities. The idea of distinguishing between a negative and a positive sense of the term ‘liberty’ goes back at least to Kant, and was examined and defended in depth by Isaiah Berlin in the 1950s and ’60s. Discussions about positive and negative liberty normally take place within the context of political and social philosophy. They are distinct from, though sometimes related to, philosophical discussions about free will. Work on the nature of positive liberty often overlaps, however, with work on the nature of autonomy. As Berlin showed, negative and positive liberty are not merely two distinct kinds of liberty; they can be seen as rival, incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal. Since few people claim to be against liberty, the way this term is interpreted and defined can have important political implications. Political liberalism tends to presuppose a negative definition of liberty: liberals generally claim that if one favors individual liberty one...
Words: 379 - Pages: 2
...works for their own gain, and/or financial development. Can lead to massive growth in middle classes. Political Philosophy is aimed at analysing how a society works and how they are governed by a ruling power. It seeks to evaluate the different ethical and political standpoints in different political parties, and analyse how they affect the citizens of the country/state. Some key ideologies include; Conservatism Tradition and custom is more important than change, unless change is desperately needed. Will tend to view human nature as innately selfish. It is government’s job to create legislation in order to provide a secure and supportive social context in which people can realise their full potential. Concentrates on maximising Positive Freedom. If Thomas Hobbes had lived in the modern era, he would probably have been conservative. Liberalism...
Words: 5592 - Pages: 23
... Given Freedom “Freedom is one of the most important thing for us”. Who is against to the statement. After the cold war, freedom became the world’s main value and many countries adapts the value. Contrary to the world today the society in “the Giver” (Lois Lowry, Harper Collins) is far from the notion of freedom. In that society, people’s lives are strictly regulated. People there cannot chose their jobs and families, and these things are determined by the “chief elder”, who observes everything in the society and consider the most suited job for all citizens. What is more, a lot of things that have risks, like animals and climates except sunny, that can make differences each other like colors clothes and strong feeling like love and sexual desire, are restricted or deleted. The story of it is that Jonas, the main character, happened to know the dark side of the society and make action to change the dark. Many people may think the world is opposite to the real world where freedom is made much of and freedom is important. However, the society is not an imaginary society far from the reality. Also in the real world, people are, without a notice, moved away from freedom, but it is impossible to sustain community without regulations. As the matter of fact, the society itself has power to limit personal freedom and hide the fact. To begin with, since the society is a group of people, who have differences each other, it needs...
Words: 1456 - Pages: 6
...well as the basic rights of all can be taken away or silenced, they were gallantly fought for and should not be abolished effortlessly. FDR makes it clear in his “Four Freedoms” speech that freedom is the right from which all other rights are derived from, “Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere” (Roosevelt 276). The principle of freedom is protected from restriction by the amendments. These amendments aid each citizen in controlling their life by securing liberty. Individuals that are greedy feel the need to inhibit someone else’s freedom, but like Malala Yousafzai said,“They thought that the bullets would silence us… out of that silence came thousands of voices” (Yousafzai 310). Hard earned freedom should not be subdued or stolen. Utilizing fear as inspiration to resist oppression, prevents the violent violation of freedom. To keep the freedom alive, everyone must take action to protect it, “...that we shall pay any price, bear any burden... to assure the survival and the success of liberty” (Kennedy 284). One person cannot be the cause of freedom, but a whole nation, having the mindset to do whatever it takes to preserve their freedom and utilize it to develop their country. If the whole nation is not invested in maintaining their freedom, they do not deserve the power that comes with it. The right of freedom is preserved through dedicated determination. Furthermore, with freedom comes the opportunity to make one’s own choices and stand up for their beliefs...
Words: 885 - Pages: 4
...The idea that the role of the state should be minimal in order to protect the liberty of individuals is a view fundamentally based in liberalism. Many liberals hold a positive view of human nature, seeing us as autonomous, and according to Locke and Bentham rational beings who act in their own self-interest, unlike many conservative theorists who view humans as fundamentally flawed. This positive view of human nature leads to the argument that the state should merely act as a neutral umpire, as is the view of Mill. Firstly it is necessary to establish what liberty is. This may be considered as the freedom from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority, this is known as negative freedom, and is a view typical to liberals. Another view includes the application of positive freedom, the ability to carry out our desires and the possession of resources to do so, this requires more state intervention. Anarchism however criticizes the state for limiting liberty unnecessarily, Individualist anarchists argue that negative liberty is required by the respect that we owe each person as sovereign over their mind. This may be supported by Locke’s view that humans are born free, however the anarchist view would be that all states oppress, according to Proudhon, the state humiliates. However Hobbes argues that in a state of nature, a society without a state, there would be a lack of negative freedom due to the ‘war of all against all’, making law a necessary evil, preventing the exploitation...
Words: 505 - Pages: 3
...minimise the role of the state Liberalism’s view over the years has evolved and so as a result different liberals have different views on the state and how “large” it should be. Over the years the trend has fir liberals to become more “state-friendly” moving from classical liberals who preached for fragmented government to modern liberals who were state friendly, however since the 1960’s/70’s Neo liberals have tried to reverse this trend. Classical liberals such as John Locke, “the father of liberalism”, have argued that in order for the state to achieve and uphold its core principles such as individualism and liberty then the frontiers of the state should be rolled back and state power curbed, An example of this is Thomas Jeffersons quote “an effective gov’t is one who governs least”. A major debate at the heart of liberalism is how to achieve freedom, positive freedom where the state ‘enables and empowers’ the individual to do more and therefore that individual is more free, or negative freedom where the gov’t should be rolled back and not inhibit the individual to be able to do things, to allow the individual to grow with minimal state intervention, classical liberals subscribe to the latter and this links in with the core principle of individualism where due to classical liberals optimistic view of human nature they believe that it is in the human nature to be rational and not take advantage of less state intervention, a key argument for this being when John Locke argued...
Words: 885 - Pages: 4
...need in the society. Public welfare programs like Medicaid expansion promote welfare, but from the conservative perspective in political debate, there is a welfare-efficiency tradeoff. The program’s proponents support their argument with empirical tests, which suggest that public welfare does not affect labor supply, so it does not cause dependence (Ayanian, 2017). With regard to Medicaid expansion, welfare is a complementary value. Stone describes the idea of liberty as two concepts of negative and positive, which separate conservatives and liberals. Conservatives lean toward negative liberty, which is “the freedom to use one’s resources as one wishes without interference,” so they believe in free market and oppose government intervention in health care. Liberals agree with positive liberty, which is “the power to choose one’s life path,” and believe that health care is a right. Medicaid expansion aligns more with positive rights, where people demand government to take responsibility to provide health care. The liberty can be complementary or conflicting depending on one’s ideology. Another value is security, a psychological feeling that frees people of any worry or fear of a possible bad event. A person may feel secure in terms of economics, food, cyber, or personal safety among many others. Access to insurance gives people peace of mind and reassurance that, in case of a medical need, they will be financially protected. Medicaid expansion provides economic security to low-income...
Words: 661 - Pages: 3
...BRIEF Applicable law/principle “Judge Benjamin Cardozo declares, that a director owes loyalty and allegiance to the corporation—a loyalty that is undivided and an allegiance that is influenced by no consideration other than the welfare of the corporation. Any adverse interest of a director will be subjected to a scrutiny rigid and uncompromising. He may not profit at the expense of his corporation and in conflict with its rights; he may not for personal gain divert unto himself the opportunities which in equity and fairness belong to his corporation.” (Mallor, 2013) Mallor defines “the duty of utmost loyalty and fidelity to the corporation as duties: 1. not to self-deal 2. not to usurp a corporate opportunity 3. not to oppress minority shareholders 4. not to trade on inside information.” (Mallor, 2013) Summary of the facts Jet Courier Service, Inc. (Jet) was a family-owned corporation established in 1981 and headed by Donald W. Wright. The offices of Jet were in Cincinnati, Ohio. Jet did not have an office in Denver, Colorado. Anthony Mulei was working in Denver for another air courier service company in a management position. Mulei had worked in the air courier industry for many years and had numerous business connections in the banking industry in Denver and other cities. Based on Mulei’s industry experience and connections, Wright felt Mulei would be able to expand Jet’s business. On February 18, 1981, Wright and Mulei orally...
Words: 2886 - Pages: 12
...When Kramnick is speaking about Liberalism, he speaks much about Locke’s Libertarianism. Meaning they believed in everyone having equal rights without jeopardizing liberties. Kramnick states that there was a divide amongst the colony. As stated in the Federalist number 10, land was as the center of this divide; it broke people up into creditor and debtors. The Federalist also states manufacturing and money interests played a role in this divide (Kramnick 6). Locke was against this divide, he quotes “justice gives every Man a Title to the product of his honest Industry” (Kramnick 6). Locke Madison and the Federalist believed in a liberal society where everyone should be treated fairly, and be respective of their “private rights” and “property rights” (Kramnick 6). Kramnick refers to CIvic humanism as the government should provide a place for this equality. The government should represent equal rights. As Hamilton states, “The idea of an actual...
Words: 1114 - Pages: 5
...Dear Mr Locke and Mr Mill, First of all I would like to congratulate you both on your ideas and beliefs on liberalism. Of course, naturally there are some aspects of your ideas that I agree with and will therefore be commenting on them in this letter. Mr Locke I would like to start with you first. Your idea on “Natural rights” is something that I would agree with. What I gathered from your idea of natural rights is that you believe that all individuals are born with certain rights and privileges that should be protected. Here I feel that you were trying to imply that we as human beings are have the right to live, the right to liberty and the right to other aspects that society can offer us. This would then lead onto the next point that I believe in that you’ve previously mentioned. This would be the idea of “Natural Laws”. The philosophical view that the government should govern according to what the people find acceptable, rather than that old view that legitimacy could be claimed from the Gods. Overall there isn’t much I disagree with you on your ideas on liberalism. Moving onto you Mr Mill, your belief in the enfranchisement of women in the twentieth century is something I feel very strongly about. As I’m sure you already know that there were a large number of individuals, of both sexes that wouldn’t have supported the views that you held but you still voiced your opinions on the matter. However as expected there would be some areas of your work that I wouldn’t agree with...
Words: 539 - Pages: 3
...It is fair that John and Jane conform to the laws. This is because they would be owning their obedience to their fellow citizens. All of whom obey the laws, even if some are specific to certain groups. The doctrine establishes the idea that each citizen owes it to their fellow citizen because doing so would further the advantages the entire populace receives. The fact that the two are citizens and enjoy the benefits of society, they too must obey the law so that these benefits can continue to be enjoyed; regardless of the loss or constraints liberties they are experiencing. Mill’s Argument Mill is in favor of limited government, as such, I would assert the opinion that he would be against aspects of this law. However, the law in question is not what he would against. Rather, how the law is enforced and by what ways the law had come into being would be the issue. The concept of limited government established that liberty of an individual is allowed to flush and restrained as little as possible. It is even more restrained when one’s happiness is infringed upon. “For Mill, sort-term or even intermediate-term calculations of happiness were a wholly inadequate means of making moral judgments about human...
Words: 1008 - Pages: 5
...The Harm Principle allows for moral or legal interference only under one condition, to prevent harm to others. Actions and beliefs that are purely self-regarding and represent no threat of harm to others should be free from interference. “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. Since harm is the main criteria for establishing the limits of state regulation and the extent of personal freedom, the concept must be clearly defined. In some cases this is done very smoothly. Acts that restrict the movement of others, cause physical injury or lead to loss of property, for instance, are subject to intervention as these consequences are uncontroversial examples of harm. But not all cases are so clear-cut. Mill himself acknowledges that even purely self-regarding actions can affect others, and it is uncertain at what point affect becomes harm. For example, a person’s religious opinions and right to discuss them should be considered immune from state interference. But expression of these views may well constitute blasphemy for others and in this sense may cause harm. Mill himself distinguishes between causing offence, which does not count as harm, and inciting violence, which is harmful and should be regulated, but the distinction is far from controversial. Other questions may also be asked of Mill’s conception of harm: can a person’s character be morally harmed? Can harm be done...
Words: 2309 - Pages: 10
...Autonomy Rights In this case, Helen Kanell obtained a copy of the final exam from her best friend, who took and copied it from professor’s personal mailbox without permit. So, What Helen’s best friend did threatens the professor’s rights to property and privacy. If Helen got an A in this exam using the “inside information”, for the others including professor fellow classmates and members of Beta Alpha Psi, their right to truth is violated. Teachers should promise a fair exam in order to build a level playing field. That Helen’s friend could have access to the original exam questions and leak them out, however, threatens the professor’s right to promise. Finally, Nobody’s right to body is infringed in this particular case. Fairness Compare peers who should be equal. It is unfair between Helen and other classmates who work hard on the same exam because only Helen had the copy of the exam, just like a short cut in the marathon, thus she could work out the problems with much more time and got the right solution by all possible means. However, others couldn’t have the same privilege. Compare earned versus received treatment. It is unfair between that Helen spent the time and energy on the exam and got an A using the copy of exam her friends gave to her because examination are designed to test how much knowledge and skills students have acquired and whether they made well preparations for the exam. Usually more preparations means better outcomes. That Helen got good result...
Words: 460 - Pages: 2
...Latin America spent many years ruled by colonial government. After gaining their freedom they formed republics. This action led to liberal movements, reforming laws, and seeking equality &liberty. Latin America wanted to incorporate two liberalism theories by John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. John Locke was the English version centered on securing land and liberty. Jean-Jacque Rousseau wanted unity and democracy. This attempt failed and they came to have Callidos. Callidos are charming individual who usually gain leadership with force or illegal activity. The elite caudillos were very strict in ruling. The ruled with force and felt they were superior to their people. In this regard, the people annoyed by the chaos and anarchy that had taken hold since the early decades of the independence would have stability and order. The folk caudillos were much like the democratic president here, in the US. The folk group was the smaller of the two. The people felt there leader should be one with people and act in their interest. The benefits of this group were the people felt represented and felt their traditions were guarded. Burns, B. (2008.). As seen in history the Europeans moving into America was gruesome and bloody. They brought with them diseases and alcohol disrupting the lifestyle of the already developed Indians. This led to the extermination of the natives. However, when the Europeans first came over they were more civil offering gifts in exchange for land and other...
Words: 311 - Pages: 2
