LIBERTY

Meaning & Definition

► “ Liberty” = derived from ‘Liber’ which means “to be free”.
THOMAS HOBBES in Leviathian (1651) says “ a freeman is he which
by his strength and wit ….he’s able to do….. is not hindered to do
what he has will to do”

► The concept of liberty carries 3 connotations

1.) notion of choice
2.) absence of constraints to exercise of choice.
3.) existing conditions to allow your choice.
Definitions of Liberty: {Conclusion}
► Freedom is a quality of human life and a condition of human
existence
► Exception → one can be free to the extent as it does not
endanger or injure the equal freedom and the rights of the fellow
citizens. LIL EXPLAIN

 Liberal thinkers commented: own flovor Hobbes ne bola tha fear or

necessacity ki wjh se hum
 No exact uniform view dusre ki liberty respect krte.
 Philosophical and ethical CHOICE ka ismein koi role
nhi hai .
 CLAUDE – Liberty is a concept about whose nature men has
ITS HER CHOICE (nhi madam
quarreled more than any other. , its not !)

EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT

Social contract theory

Hobbes :
According to Hobbes, liberty or freedom signifies the absence of all
impediments{hindrance} to action that are not contained in the
nature and intrinsic quality of the agent. Eg. Of chains
 Fear and necessity, for Hobbes, are the motivating factors in
human nature that impel them towards liberty. Eg. Debt
  While such an understanding of liberty does take into account
the ‘absence of constraints’ aspect, it totally undermines the
notion of choice and does not recognize any kind of moral
framework.
 Eg . of WANT TO LEARN OR NOT
 It is this notion of choice that is clearly absent in the examples
by which we understand Hobbes’s view of liberty. The beggar
does not have a choice on whether s/he wants to beg or not.
 Similarly, a dacoit cannot rob or kill anyone and explain it as an
act of liberty to preserve herself/himself.
{ABBBBBBB?}
 Does not make a clear distinction between acts of liberty and
acts under the threat of coercion.

JOHN LOCKE
 Understands liberty as choice exercised in a moral framework
 This moral framework is based on the Laws of Nature of which
equality is a central tenet.
 The Law of Nature, according to Locke, is that no one ought to
harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.
 Liberty as a natural right, for Locke, is no more than the liberty
to do what the Law of Nature allows—in other words, what is
morally permitted.
 For Locke, each individual is free to the extent the exercise of
freedom does not violate the tenet of equality.
The exercise of liberty should not be at the cost of equality.

 Liberty - natural right , acc to him

 As a natural right, liberty is a universal right.
 It is a right held equally by all in the state of nature.
  As a natural right, liberty is innate (natural) in human
nature, is universal and can be apprehended by reason.
 It is also a right that is bestowed by nature along with the
right to life and property.
 As a right bestowed by nature, Locke views it as
inalienable (untransferable). In other words, one cannot
waive from one’s person the right to liberty.
 As Locke states, ‘Every One … is bound to preserve
himself, and not to quit his station wilfully; so by the like
reason when his own Preservation comes not in
competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve
the rest of Mankind’

 As a natural right, liberty precedes civil and political society in

Locke’s thought.
 The contract of civil society is drawn to preserve natural rights,
including liberty. While the political society regulates liberty, it
has no power to constrain it.
 LOOPHOLE - While the moral framework of Locke ensures
existence conditions that qualify the ‘absence of restraint’ and
the element of choice, it does not specify ways to bring about
existence of conditions to facilitate choice.
 Eg. Beggar : uska natural right hai ?
 While Locke does consider natural equality as a prerequisite,
social inequalities are not addressed at all.
But neither of these conceptions addresses the hindrances of hierarchy
and inequality in the exercise of liberty.
ROUSSEAU [sbke liyeee]
 Rousseau considered freedom as a collective venture, and as
freeing oneself from selfish motives towards a larger good for
the entire group.
 His conception of liberty liberates human beings from the
hierarchical and unjust inequality of society.
 Unlike Hobbes and Locke, liberty is not a natural right for
Rousseau.
 Liberty for him is liberation from a state of unfreedom which
comes into being with the emergence of civil and political
society.
 Constraints on liberty refer to the constraints of one’s baser
[immoral] nature that does not facilitate human nature to think
of the good of all.
  A people is liberated only through obedience to law.
 Law is equated with the expression of the general will
of the whole community.
 The individual in obeying the laws obeys one’s own
self as the author of those laws, authored by virtue of
the capacity of uniting with others in the community.
 An individual can be free only by being a part of a
free people who obey laws.

 For Rousseau, one is liberated when one is free of personal

servitude.
 As Rousseau states, ‘a free people obeys, but it does not serve,
it has leaders but no masters; it obeys the laws, but it obeys
only the laws, and it is due to the strength of laws that it is not
forced to obey man’.
 It is the understanding of freedom through obedience to law
that is captured in the famous phrase of Rousseau in The Social
Contract—‘Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.’

Inke bhi vichaar choice par

 The element of choice in Rousseau’s thought is quite
interesting.
 It appears that he seems to equate choice with the right to
choose the right option, where the right option is pre-decided.
 Eg- car mt chalao ; bicycle
BENTHEM [freedom-----pleasure] , individual
liberty ignored
 Utilitarians[someone advocating practicality] see a positive
correlation between freedom and pleasure.
 Freedom is about seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. This is
best captured in Bentham’s works.
 Liberty for Bentham is viewed through the utilitarian maxim of
‘Greatest Happiness of the Greatest Number’.

 In this view, the liberty of the rapist or the murderer comes

into practical competition with that of the victim

 There can be four possible reasons because of which one can’t

endorse such a view of freedom in an unqualified manner.
 One, such an understanding of freedom is not
accompanied by a sense of moral responsibility. The
drug addict may indulge in anti social activities that
may cause pain to a large number of people.
 Two, it violates the harm principle—that one’s
exercise of liberty should not harm the life, liberty
and possessions of others—that Locke qualifies his
understanding of liberty with.
 Three, because the pleasure of one person (the
drug addict) can cause pain to several people, the
utilitarian maxim of the ‘Greatest Happiness of the
Greatest Number’ is violated.
 Four, this understanding though very similar to the
Hobbesian understanding of liberty, does not have
the sole qualification that Hobbes sets for the
exercise of freedom, namely, self preservation. So,
the drug addict’s freedom to take drugs as it gives
him/her pleasure may even be a self-destructive
move.
J S MILL ON LIBERTY
 The liberty not to have one’s individual opinion suppressed by
collective decisions of society and state is at the core of J. S.
Mill’s understanding of liberty
 His essay On Liberty seeks to protect individual liberty from the
interference of state and society.
 He takes the concept of liberty beyond the utilitarian doctrine
of Bentham by holding the view that a proper conception of
happiness includes freedom as individuality.
 Individuality was a prerequisite for the cultivation of the self.
This would enable society to progress as each individual is
useful in proportion to the extent they differ from the rest.
 Mill discusses liberty under three aspects—
 liberty of thought and discussion,
 principle of individuality, and
 limits of authority over an individual’s action.
 Liberty of thought and discussion is often understood as
freedom of expression. It is not just the right of an individual to
express an opinion but also includes the right of individuals to
hear opinions expressed.
 Mill defends the principle of individuality against governmental
interference and social tyranny. The sphere of non-intervention
in an individual’s life is demarcated by drawing a distinction
between self-regarding and other-regarding activities
 Self-regarding actions are actions over which the
individual is sovereign.
 Whether an action is other-regarding or is of concern
to others depends on whether such action is harmful
to others.
 Liberty: A Liberal Good?
MARXIST VIEW ON LIBERTY

 As a multifaceted concept, the value of liberty or freedom is

present in the writings of even those who are not considered
liberals.
 Of the thinkers we have discussed so far, Rousseau is one such
example. Yet another thinker is Karl Marx.
 Marx’s understanding of liberty is through instances of “what
is not liberty”
 The circumstances that create situations of inability of
expression of self are those that deny liberty.
 Marx explains the denial of liberty, what he terms alienation, as
a four-stage process.
 The agent is alienated from the product,
 from productive activity,
 one’s own human nature and
 from other human beings.
 Marx’s understanding of the term ‘liberation’ is leading a life of
self-realization.
 Marx held capitalism responsible for the lack of opportunities
for self-realization.
 Capitalism hinders self-realization in two ways.
 One, the formation of desires occurs through a
process the individual does not understand and with
which one does not identify. Often, one’s own
desires appear as alien powers, not as freely chosen.
 Two, the realization of desires is often frustrated by
lack of coordination and common planning.
 The non-identification with one’s desires and
confrontation of one’s self by those desires is what
he termed alienation
NEGATIVE AND POS LIBERTY

the concept of liberty was classified in 1969 as negative liberty and

positive liberty by Isaiah Berlin in his celebrated work—Two
Concepts of Liberty.

negative positive
Freedom from external Having the capability to achieve
constraints. your wants and needs
Having no master Master of yourself
“freedom from ” “freedom to do”
 Frederick Hayek and  Rousseau ,
 Robert Nozick.  hermant
 JS MILL  HJ LASKI
 Benthem
Negative Liberty
 Popularly understood as “ freedom from interference “ , the
scope of negative liberty is the answer to the question
 ‘Over what area am I master?’
 The term ‘negative’ in negative liberty indicates injunctions that
prohibit acts that restrict freedom.
BERLIN
 Berlin, however, makes it clear that incapacity to attain a goal is
not unfreedom. As he states, ‘only restrictions imposed by
other people affect my freedom’.
 For Berlin (1969), negative liberty as freedom is the opportunity
to act, not action itself.
 As ‘opportunity concept of freedom’ it focuses on
the availability rather than exercise of opportunity.
 The central problem with the negative concept of liberty is its
indifference to the quality of action.
 Two thinkers who illustrate negative liberty in their writings are
Frederick Hayek and Robert Nozick.
 Hayek views liberty as a negative concept, because
‘it describes the absence of a particular obstacle—
coercion by other men’,
 This is complimented by Hayek’s definition of
individual freedom as ‘the state in which a man is not
subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of another’
 He explains this by stating that ‘the conception of
freedom under the law rests on the contention that
when we obey laws , we are not subject to another
man’s will and are therefore free’

 Nozick’s conception, the primary threat to liberty is

the imposition of obligations to which one has not
consented.
 Liberty is to be safeguarded by keeping such
obligations to a minimum, leaving the greatest
possible scope for voluntary agreements and
exchange
Positive Liberty
 The concept of positive liberty proceeds with the idea that each
self has a higher self and a lower self.
 As Berlin (1969) states, ‘The positive sense of the word ‘liberty’
derives from the wish on the part of the individual to be his
own master
 It is “freedom to do”
 It does not just refer to non-interference, but includes the idea
of self-mastery where the higher self is in command of the
lower self.

It is what can be called the  negative freedom is just

‘exercise concept of freedom’. It having opportunities.
is exercising and availing of the
opportunities.
positive liberty is open to the
idea of directing the individual
either by law or an elite
 Rousseau is a votary of positive liberty when he states that true
liberty is in obedience to moral law.
 He also refers to it as the function of the will of the enlightened
people.
 Herbert Marcuse also favours a positive conception of liberty.
The reason given is that the working class is incapable of seeing
its true end and needs to be directed towards liberation by the
revolutionary elite.
 Positive liberty also includes the idea of collective control over
common life. Maintaining a pollution-free environment is a
collective effort for the common benefits.
 Many liberals, including Berlin, have suggested that the positive
concept of liberty carries with it a danger of authoritarianism.
 J. S. Mill and Negative and Positive Liberty

Mill, often viewed as a defender of the negative concept of freedom,

compared the development of an individual to that of a plant .
 Personal growth is something that cannot be imposed from
without, but must come from within the individual.

Critics, however, have objected that the ideal described by Mill looks
much more like a positive concept of liberty than a negative one.
Positive liberty consists, they say, in exactly this growth of the
individual: the free individual is one that develops. This is not liberty
as the mere absence of obstacles, but liberty as self-realization.

While the emphasis on non-intervention in the life of the individual

tends to classify Mill as a theorist of negative liberty, the defence of
individuality does not preclude the possibility of understanding Mill
as a theorist of positive liberty

PDF – RAGHAV KOLI

Insufficiency of Negative Liberty: Charles Taylor

 Charles Taylor points out why negative liberty may be a

necessary prerequisite but not a sufficient condition for
freedom.
 Taylor discusses the two types of liberty as the
 opportunity concept of freedom (negative liberty)
and
 as the exercise concept of freedom (positive liberty)
 For Taylor, the concept of freedom is inclusive of the
concept of self-realization.
 This notion of self-realization is unique to each
individual and can only be worked out
independently.
 As Taylor states, ‘We can’t say that someone is
free, on a self-realization view, if he is totally
unrealized.’
 Merely exercising freedom does not lead to the
attainment of self-realization.
 There are certain conditions put on one’s motivation to
qualify the exercise concept of freedom as a quest for the
attainment of self-realization
 one is not free if one is motivated ‘through fear,
inauthentically internalized standards, or false
consciousness’.
 Taylor also states that the subject cannot be the final
authority on whether one’s desires are authentic. This is
because others may know us better than we know ourselves.
One way out is the Rousseauan way, where the ‘right’ path helps in
the realization of one’s higher self. This, however, can have
authoritarian, totalitarian implications.
Liberty: Freedom as a Triadic Relation

 As Gerald MacCallum (1967) pointed out, there is no simple

dichotomy between positive and negative liberty; rather, we
should recognize that there is a whole range of possible
interpretations or ‘conceptions’ of the single concept of
liberty.
 Freedom is, therefore, a triadic relation—that is, a relation
between three things:
 an agent,
 certain preventing conditions, and
 certain doings or becomings of the agent.
 He explains liberty as a triadic relationship in the following
manner—X is free from Y to do or become (or not to do or
become) Z. (x- person , y – external constraint , z purpose)
 According to MacCallum—a subject, or agent, is free from
certain constraints, or preventing conditions, to do or
become certain things.

Locke
 Locke, for example, is normally thought of as the father of
classical liberalism and, therefore, a staunch defender of the
negative concept of freedom.
 He, indeed, states explicitly that ‘[to be at] liberty is to be
free from restraint and violence from others’. But he also
says that liberty is not to be confused with ‘licence’ and can
be exercised only within a moral framework (Locke 1988:
paras 6, 57).

Berlin
 Locke also seems to endorse an account of MacCallum’s
third freedom-variable (Z) that Berlin would call positive,
restricting this to actions that are not immoral (liberty is not
licence) and to those that are in the agent’s own interests .
LIBERTY AND EQUALITY

 The concepts of liberty and equality conflict or complement

each other depending on how they are defined.
 The most common reason for the conflict is scarcity of
resources and the nature of its distribution.
 Eg.of family
1. Liberty and equality conflict with each other when equality is
understood as equality of outcome, and liberty is understood
as freedom to choose.
 Eg explain The stress on equality of outcome, thus, is at the
cost of the liberty to choose.

2. Liberty and equality also tend to conflict with each other when
either concept is equated with fairness.(justice)
 A fair state of affairs is however very subjective. Any state of
affairs can be fair if some arbitrarily believe it to be fair and
vice versa.
 Eg explanation

3. Equality and liberty can also conflict with each other when the
practice of one is at the cost of the other.
 The extent to which liberty is attained can be gauged by the
extent to which a trade-off has taken place with the concept
of equality and vice versa
 The liberty of each sibling is violated to the extent that the
equal division of resources has limited their choice.
Equality and Liberty: A Complementary Relation?

 A complementary relation between equality and liberty also

depends on the way they are defined.
 To examine the possibility of a complementary relation
liberty can be understood as being in control of one’s life.
 This implies three things—
(a) Leading one’s life according to one’s beliefs, desires and
purposes
(b) Being able to examine and revise them
(c) Being able to pursue alternative paths
 Equality can be understood as non-discrimination.
o As non-discrimination, it entails elimination of
disadvantages of those who suffer from them, yet
are not responsible for them.
 Without an equal opportunity to be liberated, neither
equality nor liberty can attain its purpose in totality.
 Equality accompanies the concept of liberty in the view of
most thinkers.
o For Locke, natural rights (inclusive of liberty) are
regulated by natural law characterized by equality.
o For Rawls, any method of distribution of liberties
or social resources has to conform to the norm of
equality
Liberty and Rights
 While there is a strand in Western political thought that
equates the concept of right with the concept of liberty
(Hobbes, Locke, Nozick), contemporary theory is of the opinion
that they are two distinct concepts.
 idea of having a right to do or be something is the same as the
freedom to do or be something.
 Later, it was felt that while liberty cannot be equated with the
concept of right,
 a right is a liberty in a restricted sense—a liberty that
is protected, recognized or allowed by the law.
 The concept of liberty differs with the concept of right in at
least three ways.
 There can only be a right to something, whereas
freedom can be freedom to, as well as, freedom from.
One does not have a right from something (this is
distinct from a right not to do or be something).
 (b) There are degrees of freedom, but not of rights.
One can be more or less free, but one cannot have
more or less of a right.
 (c) Liberty cannot be delegated, transferred or waived
unlike a right.
 In contemporary theory, Dworkin admits that the concept of
liberty can be related to a concept of right in a weak sense.
 As he explains, someone has a right to liberty if s/he
either wants it or if it is good for her/him to have it.
 But a right to liberty cannot be always sustained in a
stronger sense of right.
 As in, if someone has a right to something, then it is
wrong for the government to deny it to her/him even
though it would be in the general interest to do so
Liberty and the Indian Constitution
 The Indian Constitution discusses liberty in Part III of the
document under Fundamental Rights.
 These rights are primarily in the form of negative injunctions
rather than positive directions to the state.
 While the rights are fundamental, they are not absolute.
 Liberty as a principle, is protected not just by the
 right to freedom and the
 right to personal liberty, but also by
 the Directive Principles of State Policy
 While Article 19 of Part III of the Constitution—Right to
Freedom—enumerates the various freedoms, Article 21 defi
nes the scope of the liberty principle.

Article 21

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except

according to procedure established by law

 one need not even be a citizen of India to invoke Article 21.

 In not demanding the criterion of citizenship, the Indian
Constitution has elevated the right to life and personal liberty
to the status of a human right.
Judiciary in India and Article 21

 udicial decision determines the outcome of the particular case,

and also may regulate the future conduct of all persons within
the jurisdiction of the court.
 It is instructive to note the way courts in India have understood
and applied the concept of liberty.
 Its multifaceted aspects as mirrored in the application of law
facilitate the structure of reality and prevent liberty from being
restricted to the abstract realm.
 The Indian judiciary is replete with instances of case law on the
concept of liberty.
 The three instances cited below indicate the role of judicial
decisions in the expansion of the scope of liberty.

 1981 when a Supreme Court judge observed that the

right to life includes the right to live with human dignity
and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare
necessities of life. In any view of the matter, include the
right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to
carry on such functions and activities as constitute the
bare minimum expression of the human self.

 1984 in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case—the scope of

Article 21 was broadened by drawing on the Directive
Principles of State Policy. The judgement noted---
o his right to live with human dignity (as)
enshrined in Article 21 … must include
protection of the health and strength of
 workers … of tender age of children against
abuse, opportunities and facilities … to
develop in a healthy manner … in conditions
of freedom and dignity, educational facilities,
just and humane conditions of work and
maternity relief.

 1989 (Ramsharan v. Union of India) where it was held

that ‘all that gives meaning to a man’s life including his
tradition, culture and heritage, and protection of that
heritage in its full measure would certainly come within
the encompass of an expanded concept of Article 21 of
the Constitution’.
 In a 1991 judgement, the Supreme Court went on to
include ‘the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water
and air for full enjoyment of life’ under Article 21.

----------------------------------OVER--------------------------------