Paste your essay in here…The concept of freedom is a complex one, with many modern political thinkers having their own conceptions of what it means. In the course of understanding freedom, the term liberty has also been used to express the “condition of the free man”, as compared to the traditional understanding of freedom as the state of being free to enjoy civil, social and political liberties, and having free will or the ability to make choices without coercion or restriction. In this essay, I argue that it is possible to identify a shared understanding of “freedom” in modern political thought.
Modern political thinkers have existed on a spectrum of negative and positive liberty, and thus their seemingly differing understanding of freedom was born. Positive liberty is conceived to be where one acts on his own will without influences from social restrictions while negative liberty occurs when one acts without influences or coercion from the community. In Rousseau’s The Social Contract, he argued that a social contract should be established, in which an individual “enters into civil society” to “exist for mutual preservation”. His view of civil freedom comprised of “the absence of impediments to pursuing one’s ends in cases where the law is silent”. He brought forth the idea that his idea of positive liberty allowed for the delivery of enabling conditions in order to accomplish one’s true desires. In contrast, Mill’s On Liberty embodies the definition of negative liberty and the Western liberal notion of doing what an individual wants without interference from the community. Mill elaborated that in order for a society to be free, it cannot be allowed to interfere with individuals’ lives whenever possible. There is a threat when individuals are subjected to the tyranny of the majority instead of tyranny of the government. In this case, the tyranny of majority is feared because where one can be protected a tyrant, it is harder to protect against the tyranny of the majority’s opinion and feelings, thus suppressing minority views. While Mill believed that society constraints one and thus should be limited in what it can do, he thus enumerates three basic liberties – freedom of thought and emotion, freedom to pursue tastes provided they do no harm to others and freedom to unite as long as one is of age – in which society has to follow and give to the citizens to be free, Rousseau established a social contract within which an individual was free to act without being restrained, contending that individuals can be both free yet subject to political authority. A shared understanding of freedom can be seen from the above two philosophers, whereby freedom is a notion that exists within society, while differing on the role that society plays in providing freedom for individuals and the way in which liberty should be, both agree that the society is a regulating factor in understanding freedom.
To elaborate further, Rousseau believes that freedom is attained when people follow the general will, as compared to Burke’s conception that one has to regulate his conduct by his own will. To Rousseau, the consent in which individuals give the sovereign to establish the social contract is guided by the general will, which derives its content and legitimacy from everyone and thus, the general will applies to everyone. Rousseau also lays out the purpose of the general will, that is to guide society to a common good, and advise society in creating law. In a way, society forces individuals to be free by forcing them to conform to the general will, and revoking individuals’ natural liberty through their change in “from the state of nature to the civil state” producing a “very remarkable change in man”, hence “instead of a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being and a man”. In his famous quote “man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains”. Comparing Rousseau with Burke, Burke believed that the role of the state is instead to ensure our real interests are achieved in the social contract existing between society and an individual. He states that “society is a partnership” that is “between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born”. Burke reasoned that the community is not only about individuals like what Rousseau envisioned, but also consist of institutions and traditions. In Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, he asserted that the revolution was destroying the fabric of good society and in a separate letter to a young Frenchman, he offered his view on freedom, being not “unconnected, individual, selfish liberty” but a “social freedom” that is “secured by well-constructed institutions”. Rousseau’s general will forces an individual to “act on different principles and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations” which “deprives himself of several advantages belonging to him in the state of nature, but he regains such great ones”. Burke however, builds his concept of freedom on the assumption that man possesses a permanent element and this purpose transcends his immediate interests, desires and urges. Burke’s orderly society forms with a structure that creates benefit for the community, and hence in this society, there exists multiple “freedoms”, not an abstract and intrinsically ideal of freedom which Rousseau’s orderly society provides. Thus, both modern political thinkers do agree on the importance of will on attaining freedom, while differing in whether it is a general will or free will that is employed.
Following the same thought regarding man having to live by rules in order to enjoy freedom, Kant believed that only practical philosophy can justify concerns regarding human freedom. Kant placed an importance on freedom because moral appraisal presupposes that individuals are free in the sense that one has the ability to do otherwise. Kant’s perception of freedom lies in one’s ability to govern his own actions on the basis of reason and not desire. In other words, Kant believed that one is free when an individual live by the rules he has imposed on himself and not by his animalistic nature imposed from birth. By self-imposing rules, individuals provide the basic structure in which they can experience matter. Kant and Rousseau are similar in believing that an individual’s state of nature is animalistic and are no more than slaves to their own instincts and impulses. However, while Rousseau proposed a social contract in which individuals sacrifices up their physical and civil freedom to have his democratic and moral freedom and the ability to have freedom to think and act rationally and morally, Kant instead believed in one’s self-control over his animalistic nature, invoking transcendental idealism to make sense of freedom. Kant explains his single fundamental principle of morality on which moral duties are grounded on, the “categorical imperative”. Thus, both modern political thinkers Kant and Rousseau both share a common understanding of the origins of freedom as well.
As argued above, it is possible to identify a shared understanding of “freedom” in modern political thought. While the various political thinkers vary in how they derive freedom should be carried out or established in the community and between individuals, their thoughts are parallel with a careful regard on the influences of community on individuals and ensuring peace while attaining freedom.