Mill's and Green's accounts of freedom

Résumé du document

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. (J.S. Mill) "It is the responsibility of the state ... to maintain the conditions without which a free exercise of the human faculties is impossible". (T.H. Green) The aim of this document is to explain and critically assess these different accounts of freedom. The idea of distinguishing between a negative and a positive sense of the term liberty was first examined by Isaiah Berlin in 1958 during a lecture entitled "Two concepts of Liberty". He defined negative liberty as the absence of constraints, barriers or obstacles on agents' possible actions and positive liberty as the possibility of acting in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes. Positive liberty is associated with the idea of self-mastery, control, self-determination, and self-realization. On one side, theorists in the classical liberal tradition, like Constant, Humboldt, Spencer and Mill, typically argue that it is not desirable for the state to promote the freedom of citizens on their behalf and defend a negative concept of liberty.

Extraits

[...] So Mill's and Green's accounts of liberty now serve as basis for many doctrines on liberty. Bibliography Readings - J.S. Mill, On Liberty, edited by Elizabeth Rapaport, Hackett Publishing Company - T.H. Green, “Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract” - R.J. Norman, Free and Equal, Chapters 2-3 - I. Berlin, concepts of Liberty” in Four Essays on Liberty - C. Taylor “What's wrong with negative liberty Internet Links - The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Positive and Negative Liberty” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ - The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy : “J.S. [...]

[...] So by not wearing a safety belt a person also runs the risk of harming others. Moreover, when one person is injured, he becomes “incapable of making any contribution to the society or playing any positive part in So private actions have inescapable implications to the public world. Moreover since people live together in society they have sympathies and interests for each other: if somebody harms oneself, it will have consequences on people who have sympathies for him. So some philosophers have rejected the dichotomy between individual” and “society” taken for granted by Mill, defending the idea of Plato and Aristotle that the individual is a “social being”. [...]

[...] Rousseau argues that liberty is the idea to be free from one's passions: be governed by appetite alone is slavery”[32]. Mill's definition of liberty fails to take into account these internal constraints. Negative conception of liberty can lead to the justification of immoral actions. Indeed it does not count as harming someone if (without force or fraud) the affected individual consents to assume the risk: thus one may permissibly offer unsafe employment to others, provided there is no deception involved. [...]

[...] With Green's positive conception of liberty there is scope for spontaneity, originality, genius [ . Society will be crushed by the weight of ‘collective mediocrity'”[38]. So Green's conception of liberty does not permit social development and could lead to over-legislation. Many liberals, including Berlin, have suggested that the positive concept of liberty carries with it a danger of authoritarianism and is better than a specious disguise for brutal tyranny”[39]. As it tempts rulers to curtail people's liberties their own it is more susceptible to political abuse. [...]

[...] J.S. Mill, On Liberty J.S. Mill, On Liberty Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. J.S. Mill, On Liberty Ibid. Ibid. I. Berlin, concepts of Liberty” Ibid. T.H. [...]