Positive and negative liberty

    Arriving at a proper definition of freedom, also called liberty, is notoriously difficult. Yet freedom is considered a basic value in moral and political decision-making, so it is given heavier weight than many other values. We will examine several conceptions of freedom that are able have been used in moral evaluation. Some theories include a freedom principle which may be expressed as "Promote freedom," or, negatively, as "Do not interfere with freedom." A problem with such principles is to find the best definition of 'freedom'.
    Philosophers distinguish between two types of freedom: positive freedom and negative freedom. Negative freedom occurs whenever no external restrictions are imposed on a person by others. Positive freedom goes further by focusing on the ability of a person to do what he or she wants to do. For example, you are free to travel, in the negative sense, if no one places a prohibition on your travel. While you may be free to travel (negatively speaking), you may not have the positive freedom to travel if you have little opportunity or insufficient funds.
    The categories of freedom, positive and negative, seem clear at first, but like many distinctions, such as the one between ‘tall’ and ‘short’, we are often not sure where one begins and the other ends. If someone takes money from me as I am about to take a trip, does that person violate my positive or my negative freedom to travel? If negative freedom, then does a past injustice to the head of a family that deprives that family of money violate the family's positive or negative freedom? What about social conditioning, or the effects on an adult of improper care as a child? If a past negative violation of freedom interferes with a person's ability to act today, we face a significant intermingling of positive and negative freedoms. Social life molds our abilities, yet the extent to which this is done is difficult, or even impossible, to determine. When something is done to us that affects our ability to function, we think of it as an infringement on our negative freedom. If the influence of social life is pervasive (which seems to be the case), then all of our actions may be affected by external interference. The influence of social life may lead people to internalize many past external influences, so today what appears to be an infringement of positive freedom (a person is not able to do something) may actually be an infringement of negative freedom (a person was deprived, by others, of the ability to act).  Top

F. A. Hayek’s sense of freedom

    Freedom, as a moral value, is often used within moral principles Given that freedom is desirable, a principle can direct us to ensure that freedom reigns. Freedom principles will differ insofar as they center either on positive or negative freedom. F. A. Hayek, for example, is concerned with a negative sense of liberty, and he wants, in a principled way, the optimization of negative freedom: "We are concerned . . . with that condition of men in which coercion of some by others is reduced as much as is possible in society. This state we shall describe . . . as a state of liberty or freedom." He defines coercion to include the manipulation of the circumstances of one person by another so as to force that person to depart from his or her own coherent life plan.
    Hayek wants people to pursue their coherent life plans without coercion by others. Although Hayek does not make this clear, his view presumes that a coherent life plan is valuable and that people can autonomously develop such a plan. But our social milieu may, either in subtle or not so subtle ways, diminish our autonomy. Given Hayek's basic concern, he should reject such social coercion. But when social coercion is rejected, given that it may be wide-ranging, we seem to move more and more to a positive conception of freedom. For people to be autonomous, they may need enabling features of life: general well-being, good health care, a solid education, real choices, etc.
    Hayek recognizes the power that social life may have over the individual. He claims:

There is the fact that man's mind is itself a product of the civilization in which he has grown up and that it is unaware of much of the experience which has shaped it -- experience that assists it by being embodied in the habits, conventions, language, and moral beliefs which are part of its makeup.

    Talk about a person's mental status being a social product refers to control over a person. Such control may be benevolent, or it may be harmful, but either way it may curtail autonomy. Since control may be pervasive, Hayek's definition of 'freedom' is not as much help in guiding actions as it first seems. In effect, Hayek's broad view of the power of social control opens speculation about actions needed to reduce coercion.
    But Hayek is not done. No matter how we are constituted, by whatever social forces, we are what we are. We have plans, hopes, desires, and needs. No one knows exactly how we got these features of our lives. Social and individual life is shrouded in ignorance. Individual freedom is needed because of ignorance; no one knows enough to know what others genuinely needs. By default, this leaves the individual as the one best placed to control his or her own life, insofar as feasible. Hayek understands that social life involves pervasive control, but he wants to limit that control so that the individual can be left alone, free to do what he or she wants, no matter how those desires came about.  Top

Hayek’s envelope of security

    Let's call the area over which an individual is free to act as he or she wishes an envelope of security. Hayek believes that society should make clear what things we are free to control ourselves; our envelope of security should be stable and clearly defined within our society. Once we have a good sense of where we may act freely, we can organize our lives around that freedom. Oddly, Hayek doesn't seem to care how that envelope is drawn, how broadly or how narrowly, so long as it is secure. For him, the way to secure the envelope is through the rule of law. Once the legal system establishes the areas in which we may do what we want, an individual may feel secure in his or her actions and may depend on gains made, may keep the fruits of his or her labor, within that envelope. In this way, an individual can pursue a coherent life plan. Once an envelope of security is provided, free from governmental interference, Hayek is willing to allow for state action, with its interference and force, to solve social problems. As long as a secure realm exists, he recognizes that state action is proper and may be helpful.
    The envelope of security is a metaphor for (limited) negative freedom. This negative freedom, for Hayek, is consistent with taxation, economic control, and collective action. It points to the need for space in which we may reliably pursue our own plans while recognizing the need for social action outside that envelope. Unfortunately, Hayek does not specify what should be in the envelope. John Stuart Mill would insist on free speech, others would insist on control over property, and still others would demand personal privacy and freedom from police action. A private sphere is a powerful notion in moral theory. We need and want a realm over which we have control and in which we may do what we want. Ethics is a social enterprise. It establishes the boundaries of acceptable action, and it establishes the need for mutual support and mutual cooperation. Both limitations on what we may do and positive direction for actions we should perform for the good of others are consistent with having a private sphere defined by a envelope of security. Indeed, as long as the aims and purposes of a moral theory can be accomplished, the envelope should be as large as feasible.
    The rule of law protecting an envelope of security is offered by Hayek as the best expression of negative freedom. But this is not enough. Positive freedom is a conception that also responds to the moral experience. Even the envelope of security is empty, or not fruitful, unless people are enabled to act rationally in that envelope. The negative conception of freedom needs to be balanced by an appropriate positive conception. Top

John Dewey’s liberalism

    John Dewey, a twentieth-century American pragmatist , presents a conception of freedom that is rich enough to serve as a model of positive freedom. For him, the idea of liberty focuses on freed intelligence and individuality. Dewey rejects economic and political restrictions that prevent most people from attaining "voluntary intelligent action." According to Dewey, a liberal must attempt to overcome social oppression, regardless of its source. A concern for human individuality entails concern for "the structure of human association. For the latter operates to affect negatively and positively, the development of individuals." Wherever social oppression exists, regardless of the systematic source, liberalism should stand opposed to it. Oppression occurs whenever some group or class "is suffering in a special way from some form of constraint exercised by the distribution of powers that exists in contemporary society."
    Dewey believes that genuine human development and knowledge involves social cooperation. Social life is cooperative. All people are dependent on social structures. A notion of freedom that sets individuals up as purely autonomous is illusory; even an envelope of security lacks significance except within proper social context. For example, in Brave New World, where all are brainwashed and crudely socially controlled, actions within a secure zone are no more free than actions anywhere else. Freedom will not be found in the context of unequal power and unequal control. Effective freedom requires supportive social structures that direct and promote human cooperation and mutual aid. Dewey seeks group equality and supportive social structures. For him, both are required if freedom is to be more than a sham.
   But group equality, in current circumstances, is utopian. And supportive social structures present an open-ended demand. We can aid people with increasingly higher levels of support, and people might then grow dependent on that support. Problems involved in obtaining, or even defining, freedom, may lead to the conclusion that we should consider the full statement of positive freedom to be a social ideal, not a principle principle.   Top