On the Two Concepts of Liberty

This essay was written in reaction to ‘The Two Concepts of Liberty’ Isaiah Berlin in March 2021

In his work ‘The two concepts of liberty’, Isaiah Berlin seeks to call attention to the rising wave of ideological politics that was — and has now — joined together across the world. But it is muddled, because the very nature of the driving force for the modern ideologies — liberty — is a matter of debate. This is the crux of this essay, and Berlin attempts to highlight the fundamental aspects of liberty and its counter-intuitive nature.

Berlin attempts to define the populist notion of ‘freedom’. Highlighting the universal approval for the concept Berlin coins the notion of negative liberty which, as he says,

‘What is the area within which the subject is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?’

Negative liberty is deciding what I, an individual, am allowed to do.

But is absolute liberty in the negative sense something that we as a society can sustain? Surely every person will agree that nothing can be allowed which can harm someone else. But how do we define harm? Is it just bodily, or even financial harm? Discrimination against individuals has been repeatedly touted as one of the evils of a civilized society. But the racist claims that the world he sees harms his sensibilities. Is this harm not justified?

The primary obstacle with the conception of Negative Liberty is the definition of a social boundary — essentially, the separation between individual liberty and the collective societal good. The Kantian attitude of the sacred nature of liberty comes undone when the collective good is sought.

The classic example of the second amendment of the US Constitution serves best here. All other western nations — most with cultures significantly similar to the US — have enacted stringent laws regarding to the ownership of firearms. But the US constitution — a sacred entity — protects the right to own a firearm for every American citizen, and we end up in a situation where the collective good suffers while a ‘gun control debate’ is under consideration.

On the other hand, China, with its total influence over its public routinely monitors all personal electronic devices completely. There is no expectation of privacy, and thus of individual liberty, in the goal of achieving the collective good.

Thus Berlin, by bringing forth the concept of negative liberty, gives us a metric to test the spectrum of democracy. He comes to the implicit conclusion that the social boundary is best administered when decided by the governed, logically leading to the ideal democratic government.

The other half of this dichotomy is the notion of positive liberty. Berlin calls it ‘the wish on the part of the individual to be his master’. It is the power to make the best of oneself. Berlin calls on the Hegelian concept of freedom from one’s own nature — the conflict between the rational and the irrational, passionate self — as the fundamental expression of positive liberty.

But what happens when we extend this concept outside of the individual? Is it so that we should, according to positive liberty, conquer irrationality outside our own minds? Is that not what human endeavours are; the conflict of the real self and the ignorant, selfish self?

T.H Green says

‘The ideal of true freedom is the maximum power for all members of human society alike to make the best of themselves’.

Berlin calls on the fundamental flaw in this view of thinking; that an individual who seeks immediate ‘pleasure’ in lieu of pursuing what will make the ‘best of himself’ does not exercise true freedom, and if deprived of it would not lose anything that mattered.

This, according to Berlin, is the tipping point to tyranny.

Is such a harsh position justified? The Kantian ideal of a rational man implies that rational men think alike, and thus, a society which pursues this rational thought is an ideal society. Irrational people who do not believe this must be educated to see the light of rationalism.

Why is this idea so repulsive to most of us? Berlin says that this train of thought is the paradox of rational liberty. Negative liberty can be theoretically extended from an individual to a society (though we don’t know how). The idea applied to individual positive liberty — with its roots in Kantian philosophy — leads to a paternalistic, despotic society.

But what is the cause of this paradox? Berlin attempts to expand on this with the historical approach of the human search for status. This pursuit of status is the primary motivation for our behaviour and the paradox is more evident when seen by this lens. Introducing the concept of status, Berlin attempts to salvage the sanctity of rationality.

But that is the primary culprit in the notion of positive liberty. Berlin discards the notion, preferring the alternative of Negative Liberty. But positive liberty works if we discount the notion of a rational superiority. Instead of a universal ideal, a societal ideal allows positive liberty to be properly flourish.

Over the five millennia of human civilizations, we have developed several ethical and moral principles.

The Silver Rule: do unto others as they do unto you, the Golden Rule: do unto others as you wish they would do unto you. The most elegant of them all — with no cause for debate — is the Hippocratic principle; First, do no harm.

The idea of the human search for status is — although agreeable — an incomplete concept. Human interactions in a society are never about achieving status; rather they are about making sure that status is not lost. We as humans are asymmetrically wired to ensure that there is no unfairness instead of wanting fairness.

When do people revolt? When there is a sense that they are being treated unfairly. A perfectly fair world feels oppressive to our senses. Philosophers have sought the aid of concepts such as ‘artistic freedom’ and ‘unique nature of individuals’ to account for what is essentially an inherent asymmetric bias. We are content to live in the grey zone between fairness and unfairness; in fact, we find such a life rewarding.

Extending the idea of democratic decision making to achieve the ideals of the society is a solid step towards achieving positive liberty. Incorporating the asymmetric fairness of the society ensures that there is no slippery slope towards despotism. And finally, defining the social boundary of Negative liberty will allow an actual liberal state.