who would i read to get a better understanding of what this is any suggestions appreciated?
2007-07-31 12:18:51 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Positive freedom is the freedom TO act and negative freedom is freedom from restrictions on actions. Charles Taylor is a famous propent of positive freedom, whilst Isiah Berlin is very famous for espousing negative freedom.
Basically this is not to do with Free Will, it is more freedom within the political philosophy context. There have been attempts to establish a third way, which following from the inital debate in the 50s and 60s seems to have more weight now. McGinn has written articles on this third way. The Basic concept is there is no point in having absolutely no restrictions on ones actions if one does not have the freedom to actually act, this also holds conversely of course. Basically it has always appeared to me that they are merely two ways of expressing what is essentially the same concept.
Hope this was what you had in mind?!
2007-07-31 12:22:19 · answer #1 · answered by Bobby B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The person usually cited as the first to draw a distinction between the two is Isiah Berlin in a lecture given in 1958 titled "Two Concepts of Liberty". Basically, the distinction is this:
Negative freedom is freedom from an externally imposed authority. ALL limitations on negative freedom are man-made. A person alone in nature, therefore, has perfect negative freedom. A person kept sedated in a supermax jail has pretty much zero negative freedom.
Positive freedom is what you can do with what you have. None of us have wings, so we lack this positive freedom. Someone with access to a computer probably has the positive freedom of creating and posting a web page, but someone without access does not have this freedom.
The distinction lies in what's stopping you from doing something. If you can't do it in the first place, you lack a positive freedom. If someone is forcibly preventing you from doing it, you lack a negative freedom. It is possible to lack both. And it's possible to have both but just not take advantage of it (being lazy isn't a lack of freedom of any kind).
2007-07-31 19:43:52 · answer #2 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
jonny.. ok then positive freedom is when you can create something that is worthwhile and its your choice to do that.
Negative freedom is standing by and passively watching or walking away because you don't want to or cant be bothered?
Would you agree with that..
2007-07-31 19:25:41 · answer #3 · answered by Chrisey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋