2024-10-01
Freedom is a difficult term to defined because it is employed not only by political theorists but also by social scientist and philosophers. In each case the concern with freedom is rather different. In philosophy, freedom is usually examined as a property of will. Do individuals posses 'free will'? In economics and sociology freedom is thought of as a social relationship. To what extent are individuals 'free agent' in social life, able to exercise choice and enjoy privileges in relation to others? By contrast, political theorists often treat freedom as an ethical ideal or normative principle, perhaps as the most vital such principle. However, they separate the definition of what freedom is from questions about its value, employ an essentially social-scientific definition of the term. Although, as an popular political slogan 'freedom' function as an ideal, lacks analytical attention and clarity.
Perhaps the best way of giving shape to freedom is by distinguishing it from 'unfreedom'. Most people are willing to accept difference between 'liberty' and 'license'. However, where that distinction should be drawn is the source of controversy. Furthermore, it is by no mean clear what we mean by the term 'freedom'. By highlighting various forms freedom can take, political thinkers have long treated freedom as an 'essentially contested' concept. For instance, 19th century, Benjamin constant distinguished between what he called 'the liberty of the ancients', meant direct and collective participation in public life, and 'the liberty of the moderns', referred to independent from government and encroachment of others. Whereas Isaiah Berlin, essay 'Two Concepts of Liberty', made one of the most influential attempt. Berlian claims to identify a 'positive' concept of freedom, refers to 'free to' do something, and a 'negative' concept of freedom, meant 'free from' something.
Such a distinction has been widely criticized. For instance, the difference between to and freedom from is merely a confusing of language, each example of freedom can be described in both ways. Being 'free to' gain an education is equivalent to bring 'free from' ignorance. A more coherent, well defined value-free concept of freedom propose by MacCallum in his book 'Negative and Positive Freedom' (1972). Defined freedom in the form: X is free from Y to do or be Z. MacCallum notion of freedom clarify thought about freedom in a numbers of ways. In the first place, it suggests that the question 'Are we free?' is meaningless, and should be replaced by a more complete and specific statement about what we are free from, and what we are free to do. It bring out the fact that while we may be free from one obstacle, like physical assault, not from others, such as laws which prevent us from assaulting fellow citizens. This notion explain how people disagree about freedom. For instance, some argue that freedom can be restricted only by physical or legal obstacles, others insist that a lack of material resources, social deprivation and inadequate education may be a cause of unfreedom.
The term freedom use more frequently in the writings and speeches of politicians than perhaps any other political principle. Indeed, it is almost universally accepted as being morally 'good', and its opposites - oppression, imprisonment, slavery or unfreedom - are regarded as undesirable. Freedom in its simplest sense, regarded as to do as one wishes or act as one choice, absence of constrains, obstacles and restrictions. However, few people are prepared to support the removal of all restrictions or constrains upon the individuals. Only anarchists, who reject all forms of political authority as unnecessary and undesirable, are prepared to endorse unlimited freedom. Others insist upon a distinction between two kinds of self-willed action - 'liberty' and 'license'. This distinction can create confusion. For instance, it implies that only morally correct conduct can be dignified as 'freedom' or 'liberty'. However, many political theorist employ a value-free or social-scientific understanding of such terms, quite prepared to accept certain freedom such as the freedom to murder, should be constrained. In that sense, the liberty/license create a question, which freedom are we willing to approve, and which ones are we justified in curtailing?
'License' means the abuse of freedom; it is the point at which freedom becomes 'excessive'. Whereas liberty is usually thought to be wholesome, desirable and morally enlightening. License is oppressive, objectionable, and morally corrupt. However, it creates a deep ideological controversy about the point at which liberty starts to become license. Libertarians, seek to maximize the realm of individual freedom and reduce to minimum those actions which are regarded as license. Libertarians such Robert Nozick and Milton Friedman, advocate the greatest possible freedom of choice in marketplace, freedom in economics term. An employer's ability to set wage levels, alter conditions of work, and to decide who to employ or not, can be seen as manifestations of liberty. On the other hand, socialist have often regarded such behaviors as license, on the grounds that the freedom of the employer may mean nothing more than misery and oppression for his/her workers. Clear ethical grounds must therefore be established in order to distinguish liberty and license.
The problem with establishing the desirable realm of liberty is that there are numbers of grounds upon which freedom can be upheld. In much of liberal though, freedom is closely related with the notion of rights, because tendency of treating freedom as a right or entitlement. Indeed two concepts fused, when 'rights' are describe as 'liberties' Right-based theories help to drawn a clear distinction between liberty and license. In short, liberty means acting according to or within one's rights, whereas license means to act beyond one's rights or to abuse the rights of others. However a close examination revels the complexity associated with rights. Rights are always balance against one another, in the sense, most actions can have adverse consequences for other people. In this sense, freedom is zero-sum game, when one person such as employer, gain more freedom, someone else, in this cane employee, loses it. It is therefore impossible to ensure that the rights of all are respected.
Another debate associated with the notion of rights, who has rights and why? For instance, most liberals and conservatives insist that the right to property is a fundamental human right, many socialist would disagree. Socialist and modern liberal uphold the importance of social rights such as right to education, right to health care. While supporters of New Right have argued that individuals alone are responsible for such matters.
An alternative means of distinguishing between liberty and license was proposed by J.S. Mill. Mill believed that individual freedom was the basis for moral self-development, he proposed that individuals should enjoy the greatest possible realm of liberty. However, he also recognized pitfalls of unrestrictive liberty. On Liberty, 1859, Mill proposed a clear distinction between 'self-regarding' actions and 'other regarding' actions, individuals should have sovereign control over his/her body and life. The only justification for constraining the individual liberty, was in the event of 'harm' being done to other. In effect, the 'harm principle' indicates the point at which freedom becomes 'excessive', liberty becomes license.
Although this distinction may appear to be clear and reliable, notion of 'harm' being more concrete than the idea of 'rights', it nevertheless provokes controversy. This largely centers around what is meant by 'harm'. Mill refer merely to physical harm, allows a very broad range of actions to be regarded as liberty. Mill was prepared to allow individuals absolute freedom to think, write, and say, also allow them to take harmful actions as long as they are self-regarding. However, if the notion of 'harm' is broadened to include psychological, moral and even spiritual harm, it can be used to classify a far more extensive range of actions as license. For instance, if it includes economic or social aspect, a pay freeze by an employer, which may not pose any physical harm to his/her employees but undoubtedly harms their interests.
Another attempt to distinguish between liberty and license refer in some way to the principle of equality. If liberty is thought to be a fundamental value, surely it is one to which all human beings are entitled. Thus, those who employ right-based theory of freedom acknowledge the importance of 'equal rights'; and Mill insisted that the 'harm principle' applied equally to all citizens. Liberty becomes license not when the rights of another are violated, or when harm is done to others, but when liberty is unequally shared out. John Rawls, each person is entitled to the greatest possible liberty compatible with a like liberty for all. Most liberal democracies respect the principle of equality, reflecting in the fact that, at least in theory, political, legal, and social rights are available to all citizens. However, the doctrine of equal liberty bedeviled by problems about how freedom is defined. If freedom consists of exercising a set of formal rights, the task of measuring freedom and ensuring that it is equally distributed is easy. By establishing formal equality and equality before law, this can be achieved. The matter becomes complicated, if freedom is understood not as the possession of formal rights but as the opportunity to take advantage of these rights. For instance, modern liberal and social democrats argue that the principle of equal liberty points to the need to redistribute wealth and resources in society. Such disagreements go to the very heart of the debate about the nature of freedom, particularly to the conceptions of negative and positive freedom.
Freedom has been described as 'negative' in two different senses. In the first, law is seen as the main obstacle to freedom. Such a view is negative in the sense that freedom is limited only by what others deliberately prevent us from doing.