Comparing Two Concepts

One of the greatest and more fundamental gifts of life is the autonomy that comes with being a sentiment human being. This hasn’t always been considered a human right, however, and many eastern hemispheres are struggling to catch on to the concept that people should be allowed to make the decisions they choose without the external pressure to do otherwise. Thus, the question that should be asked is whether or not every human being on this planet is free, whether they should be free and what does free really mean. For many, freedom is all about that ability to to choose what they want, make their own decision and be able to move around as they please. Freedom is about equity, free speech and the guarantee of life, no matter how good or bad.

I imagine each and every single one of you can think of a friend or family member or even maybe you have suffered for any type head injury.

The word freedom is often associated with the idea of an unfettered liberty to select from a range of alternatives coupled with a sense that our actions will not affect our natural state.

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

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.

To a contemporary American, the idea that freedom could be negative is profoundly disturbing. The value of freedom is so dear to our secular culture that it is seen as a universal good. However, it can be observed that even within a relatively free society, people often seem desperate to constrict themselves with self-made prisons. People remain in bad marriages and bad jobs, saying 'they have no choice,' without exploring the limits of what choice means. Theoretically, one can 'walk away' from a bad job and not look back, provided one is willing to accept the uncertainty of not knowing where the next paycheck will come from. But the anxiety of too many choices often paralyzes the individual so we prefer to say we have no choice. The idea of security, which The Grand Inquisitor says is what people really want, can cause many people to reject a happier, freer life.

As one of the most important concepts in philosophy, freedom always attracted the attention of the thinkers. Such outstanding philosophers as Saint Augustine, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Isaiah Berlin provide valuable responses to the problem of freedom, which are still actual. For instance, Isaiah Berlin can be considered the true ideologist of dialectic of freedom, dividing this issue into positive and negative one. According to Isaiah Berlin, positive and negative freedom are closely connected with social and political development of human civilization. Precisely the way people evaluate and define their freedom influences political and social regime, which can develop in such society. Using the brilliant examples from the history of philosophical thought, Berlin provides the direct instances of negative and positive freedom existence. Each type of freedom premises a separate way of living, social structure, and role of individuality.

Nursing theory is relatively new and as such, it continues to evolve as new knowledge is gained. There are numerous theories of nursing, each of which took years to develop and most of which continue to evolve and adapt. There are commonalities between and among the existing theories although each may focus more heavily on different aspects of responsibilities. It has to do with the philosophical foundations for each theory.

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

In other words, one can be told what good and evil are. One can be coerced into accepting one view of good/evil over another. But without freedom, one cannot verify for themselves whether another’s claims of good and evil are valid, or come to their own conclusions, through their own efforts. At best, they can only follow others and pretend to agree with them without having any personal reasons why, or personal involvement in their moral development.

Negative liberty is a freedom from restrictions that would not permit an individual from making desired choices. The action of the individual is control externally to the extent that it conflicts with is internal desires. For example, a professional footballer who still has 4years left on his contract with his club may harbor the desire to join other clubs. He is said to have his liberty to make decisions but parent club could restrict his desires so he could complete his term of contract; this can be best termed as negative liberty (Liberalism: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Freedom is an important concept in Western politics, strongly entwined as it is with ideas of liberalism. Yet, as suggested by the question, the concept is one which is hotly debated. Indeed, political agents attempt to control the political agenda through promotion of their particular definition. This essay will look at the ways freedom has been defined by different theorists over the years. It will also look at how freedom is linked with and explained through different theo-ries and ideologies. It will then go on to look at how these different theories and ideologies may shape the conceptions of freedom we find in our daily lives.

Throughout out our lifetime Freedom has been something taken and given back multiple times to people. However once something that is precious is given when trying to take it back you will be faced with a strong force of resist. But if you don’t know if you are or aren’t free than you are not truly free. Freedom is an illusion of what is not actuality, wanting or choosing something isn’t free but caused by another chain of event.

Individual freedom is often seen as the core value of Liberalism. Nevertheless, freedom can be divided into two categories: negative and positive. Negative freedom, which is traditionally associated with Classical Liberalism, advocates the belief in non-interference and the absence of all external constraints upon the individual. This absence of limits implies that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests, free from outside restrictions or pressures. Negative freedom, however does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is Unlimited, it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe upon their personal

Negative and positive liberty are best understood as distinct values within Berlin’s own scheme of value pluralism. While an increase in either is desirable, ceteris paribus, attempting to maximize any single idea of liberty without regard to any other values necessarily entails absurd and clearly undesirable conclusions; any sensible idea of jointly maximizing freedom in general, therefore, must acknowledge the tradeoffs inherent in increasing one aspect of freedom or another. The tension here is akin to the familiar tradeoff between equity and efficiency concerns in economics; negative and positive freedom are not diametrically opposed, but the two ideals may not be individually maximized at the same time.