Analysis Of Isaiah Berlin 's Two Concepts Of Liberty

Although liberals agree about the value of liberty, their views on what it means to be ‘free’ vary significantly. It was Isaiah Berlin who first created the concepts of negative and positive freedom that helped to differentiate between the two liberals’ views of freedom. The concept of negative freedom was adopted by classical liberals, who believed that freedom was defined as being left alone and free from interference. Classical liberals believed this theory to mean that individuals should be free from external restrictions or constraints. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believed in positive freedom. This, modernist’s perceived to means that all individuals have the ability to be their own master, and thus reach full autonomy. Unlike classical liberals, who had little faith in humankind, Modernists conveyed humans in a much more positive light: people are rational beings that are capable, and therefore should be able, to flourish and

Preliminary Thesis: I will persuade future American generations that freedom is a privilege. We Americans need to stop taking our freedom for granted because there are people who wished to have the opportunity to be free the way we do.

Eva’s soliloquy- “you can’t go against you own people, your own blood.” - Symbolism of conformity.

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

Harry L. Watson’s book, “Liberty and Power, The Politics of Jacksonian America”, takes an analytical look at America and her politics during the Age of Jackson. Watson uses the economy and the ideological mindset of the people, to support a powerful argument about the beginning of American political parties and their importance in defining the political direction of the country. Watson argues that economic inequalities caused by the “Market Revolution” and a threat to American liberty caused Americans to organize politically in support of a

Our world today is filled with unnecessary oppression. Slavery is one common form of human oppression, but there are numerous other forms as well. War, death, hunger, and sadness caused the elders in the society of The Giver to force each citizen to live extremely structured, controlled lives. That structure and control effected each person’s ability to live unique, private, and free lives. The elders in The Giver wanted all the citizens in the community to be undifferentiated for their own safety, so they greatly censored all citizens. Lack of freedom to pursue individual happiness is, indeed, a form of oppression not only faced by fictional book characters, but also by twenty-first century Americans. American society is changing so rapidly that we as independent Americans must decide whether safety, or freedom, is more important.

Freedom is one of the many great qualities of life, but when it is taken away, life could turn out to be anything but great. Freedom to think, repent, and refuse should be incorporated in ones daily routine, but under an authoritarian dystopian society, these freedoms are only dreamt of. When society draws such attitudes and lifestyles upon its citizens, one adapts and accepts these requests, but not without a compromise. In Shirley Jackson’s masterpiece ‘The Lottery’ and Kurt Vonnegut’s exceptional story ‘Harrison Bergeron’, human life is so often sacrificed and withdrawn that is becomes a norm in society. Forcing people to agree with someone else’s ideology of harmony and success cannot be achieved without discarding the non-believers.

This implies a relationship in which the state through its instruments dominates society. Hence in the totalitarian state all political, economic, social, cultural and intellectual activities should be directed towards fulfilling the aims of the state” (“Totalitarianism”, 1999). In a totalitarian state, individuals have no rights and they must obey the government without question. If individuals questioned or disagreed with the government, they were silenced by death or prison.

Gadfly's assertion that "freedom is bad for human beings" is inherently flawed due to his usage of a faulty analogy which compares two disparate relationships based on the assumption that freedom naturally leads to anarchy in the absence of an omnipotent ruler. The crux of Gadfly’s analogy is the presence of two distinct classes of people; the superior leader and inferior citizens, thus excluding systems of government like democracies which allow the citizenry to elect a leader, choosing a fellow citizen, equal under the law, to govern. Gadfly’s statements are more characteristic of a tyrannical state in which leaders act hypocritically, using their elevated status to create laws that they never intend to apply to themselves just as parents

Freedom is the ultimate goal—this intrinsic desire has been manifested within human civilization since the beginning of time. Although, humans crave the idea of complete freedom, they do not understand what complete freedom entails. I believe freedom is a social construct that is conceptualized. The definition of freedom almost always varies from person to person; my interpretation of freedom is being given the ability to act, reason and believe with the condition of minimal constraint. Moreover, the terms freedom and free-will must be differentiated between, they cannot be defined within the same realm. Free-will is a psychological capacity, directing ones behavior in a way responsive to reason, while freedom is constrained by rules that govern us through social order. Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor proclaims that it is not freedom that brings man happiness, but security. On the contrary, Socrates a famous Greek philosopher, places much emphasis on freedom that he accepts death over living a slave.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville’s memorable claim that there is an incredible tension between liberty and equality in America is certainly true. His secondary argument is equally justifiable—that Democratic nations, especially American, will grow to love equality more “ardently and enduringly” than liberty (Tocqueville, 202), and can be proved by observing current American political patterns and events.

Many ideas are important within the American culture, but to the American sense of patriotism, freedom is most fundamental. The idea of freedom is central to the American politics – which is at times referred to as liberty. Since the birth of the nation, freedom has been the vocabulary of the American language and its importance cannot be underestimated. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, ranks liberty as an inalienable right. On the other hand, the Constitution reckons that it purposes to protect civilians’ liberty. The importance of freedom has even stretched further than the political arena and has prompted the birth of civil rights movements and other activist protests. The Cold War and the Civil War were all for the cause of freedom. The importance that Americans attach to freedom can also be demonstrated from the erection of statues, banishment of slavery, use of liberty poles and a right to vote for adults. For many years, women and the African Americans have for a long time fought against denial and infringement of their freedom . However, given the importance that Americans affiliate to freedom in the conceptualization of their country, it has been the subject of modifications over the course of years especially before the Revolutionary War.

Secondly, when we ask the question, what is freedom, we are not simply asking for a definition. We are seeking to find some truth in regards to liberty. We don’t ask this difficult question in order to get some sort of dictionary definition, we ask this question in order to gain insight. We ask this question to know how we should live our lives and how our government and other institutions should act in respect to liberty and our freedoms. Berlin’s two conceptions not only provide us with a definition, but also helps us determine how our society and laws should progress.

Just as every plants and animal as evolved and changed throughout the course of its existence so has the definition of freedom while its’ meaning has stayed constant. Freedom has a perpetual meaning, however, humans have tried to change the definition based upon moral, ethical, social, and legal ideals that have through history been debated upon and never satisfied all. Freedoms’ perpetual meaning is that everyone, no matter race or gender, has the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. As time progresses and new ideas flourish the definition of freedom either flourishes along with society or takes a drastic spiral downward usually with the opinions of humanity. In this essay we will be

“Absolute liberty is the absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible to himself” - Henry Brooks Adams. There has been great debate, past and present with regards to what constitutes as an individuals liberty. It has been subject to constant ridicule and examination due to violations of civil rights. Freedom, liberty, and independence are all important human rights represented within John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.