This is quite interesting, and it ties in with the Dworkin book we've been doing in reading group the last couple of months -- it's a theory of justice, essentially, with a theory of rights and responses to other theories of rights and justice specifically.
The group I led last week was looking at Liberty and Liberalism, which looked at Mill's views (yes the utilitarian Mill, after Bentham). The whole thing was mostly looking at when liberty should be restricted, and there are two ways to look at it, liberty as license (degree to which a person is free from legal or social constraint to do what he wills), and liberty as independence (the status of a person as independent and equal rather than subservient), which is basically the positive/negative thing you were talking about.
Liberty as license is an indiscriminate concept because it doesn't distinguish among forms of behaviour, and prescriptive laws diminish a citizen's liberty as license. So you have to ask whether an attack on liberty is justified by some competing value (equality, safety, public amenity, etc.)
Liberty as independence is not indiscriminate, and laws don't threaten but protect the political independence of citizens. However, the high value placed on liberty on independence doesn't mean that other values are denigrated.
So Mill liked liberty as independence, because he liked the idea of equality it promoted, and the fact that it protects an individual from political decisions that deny him equal respect (and not just promises an equal voice, like liberty as license).
BTW this all ties in to Dworkin's theory of rights, which builds on this liberty as independence idea. I can go more into it if you're interested (it's quite interesting! imo)
So Dworkin wouldn't like the idea of "slaves are more free" because it wouldn't fit in with his ideas of liberty and rights.
The group I led last week was looking at Liberty and Liberalism, which looked at Mill's views (yes the utilitarian Mill, after Bentham). The whole thing was mostly looking at when liberty should be restricted, and there are two ways to look at it, liberty as license (degree to which a person is free from legal or social constraint to do what he wills), and liberty as independence (the status of a person as independent and equal rather than subservient), which is basically the positive/negative thing you were talking about.
Liberty as license is an indiscriminate concept because it doesn't distinguish among forms of behaviour, and prescriptive laws diminish a citizen's liberty as license. So you have to ask whether an attack on liberty is justified by some competing value (equality, safety, public amenity, etc.)
Liberty as independence is not indiscriminate, and laws don't threaten but protect the political independence of citizens. However, the high value placed on liberty on independence doesn't mean that other values are denigrated.
So Mill liked liberty as independence, because he liked the idea of equality it promoted, and the fact that it protects an individual from political decisions that deny him equal respect (and not just promises an equal voice, like liberty as license).
BTW this all ties in to Dworkin's theory of rights, which builds on this liberty as independence idea. I can go more into it if you're interested (it's quite interesting! imo)
So Dworkin wouldn't like the idea of "slaves are more free" because it wouldn't fit in with his ideas of liberty and rights.
And that's my story. I like stories. The end.
Reply
PPS I know you don't drive at 110!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment