Liberty is a value that each person in a democratic society takes for granted. Taking this value from us, would remove the opportunity for individuals to make their own choices in life. Liberty is not a value that is constant throughout the various societies in the world, citizens of developed Western countries could be described has having considerably more liberty when compared with many of the less developed Arab nations. Theorists have studied the concept of liberty for centuries and there have been a number of different definitions, from people like Machiavelli to more modern theorists like Mill. It is the fundamental value that allows people to make decisions for themselves in civilised society. Without liberty, people would live in a situation where every last detail of their lives is dictated to them by government or society. We would be devoid of having the right to make choices and decisions for ourselves. Freedom is a fundamental value in all societies, so great that the framers of the `Declaration of Independence' decided to enshrine this value in the document. So what exactly is liberty? And why is it such an important value in our society? Throughout this essay I will look at what exactly the concept of liberty meant to a number of important theorists. Liberty can be described as the condition of being free from restriction or control, it embodies the right to act, believe or express oneself in the manner of ones own choosing. In this essay I am going to look at the theorists such as Locke, Mill, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rousseau and Milton to identify what they meant by liberty. The ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle thought liberty was an ideal that could not fully exist in its pure form in th... ... middle of paper ... ...y of the Ancients Compared to That of the Moderns. Hobbes, T. (1991). Leviathan. Edited with an introduction and notes by Richard Tuck. Cambridge University Press. Hollis, M. (1996). Machiavelli, Milton and Hobbes on Liberty. In Social and Political Theory (ed) Bellamy, R. & Ross, A. Manchester University Press. Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. Edited with an introduction and notes by Peter Laslett. Cambridge University Press. Mill, J. S. (1998). On Liberty and Other Essays. Edited with an introduction and notes by John Gray. Oxford University Press. Rousseau, J. (1997). The Social Contract and other Political Writings. Edited and translated by Victor Gourevitch. Cambridge University Press. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative
The foremost aspects to consider from the Leviathan are Hobbes’s views on human nature, what the state of nature consists of, and what role morality plays. Hobbes assumes, taking the position of a scientist, that humans are “bodies in motion.” In other words, simple mechanical existences motivated solely to gain sati...
Foner focuses, specifically, on how the definition of liberty has been molded over time. He describes how other factors played a role in the change of liberty using three interrelated themes. The first theme, as he describes it, covers the dimensions or meanings of freedom. The dimensions include “political freedom, or the right to participate in public affairs… civil liberties, or rights that individuals can assert against authority…[and] moral or ‘Christian’ ideal of freedom,” the freedom to act morally or ethically good (Foner xvii). It also includes personal freedom or being able to make individual choices free from coercion, and “economic freedom…[which covers how] the kinds of economic relations constitute freedom for… [individual’s working lives]” (Foner xviii). All these dimensions are looked at individually as they play a role in reshaping the definition of freedom or liberty.
Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty: An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), 326.
Foner, Eric. "Chapter 9." Give Me Liberty!: An American History. Brief Third ed. Vol. One. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. N. pag. Print.
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
Foner, E. (2008). Give me Liberty: An American History. New York, Ny: WW. Norton &
4.de Toqueville, Alexis. Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty: An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), 358.
Throughout history, western philosophers have vigorously attempted to define the word freedom, to little avail. This is because the word carries so many meanings in many different contexts. The consequences of these philosophers’ claims are immense: as “free” people, we like to rely on the notion of freedom, yet our judicial system relentlessly fights to explain what we can and cannot do. For instance, is screaming “bomb!” on an airplane considered one of our “freedoms?” Martin Luther, in his “Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans” asserts that people are free when their actions naturally reflect laws and morality to the point that those laws are considered unnecessary. Immanuel Kant, in his “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”, articulates a similar view: freedom for Kant is the ability to exercise one’s reasoning without limitation in a public sphere. A deeper reading of these two texts exposes that Kant’s and Luther’s interpretations of freedom are actually more similar than different. Indeed, they are mutually exclusive: one cannot coexist with the other and Kant’s views can even be read as a restating of Luther’s understandings.
John Mill’s On Liberty seeks to expound on how individuals and the society can exist as liberal entities without infringing on each other’s rights. Liberty is the condition of being free within the society, that is free from any form of restriction inflicted by authority. He argues that individual freedom is the basis of democracy where people exercise their own free will (Mill 2005). He also rejects the idea of social contract where individuals comply with society for them to gain social benefit (Mill 2005). It is generally thought that social development can only occur if certain constraints are placed on individual liberty. But the contrary is also true, if restriction are placed on people’s freedom, it becomes difficult for them to thrive
SparkNotes: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778): The Social Contract. (n.d.). SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/rousseau/section2.rhtml
It is easier to describe what is not freedom, in the eyes of Rousseau and Marx, than it would be to say what it is. For Rousseau, his concept of freedom cannot exist so long as a human being holds power over others, for this is counter to nature. People lack freedom because they are constantly under the power of others, whether that be the tyrannical rule of a single king or the seething majority which can stifle liberty just as effectively. To be truly free, says Rousseau, there has to be a synchronization of perfect in...
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “The Social Contract”. Modern Political Thought, Second Edition. Ed. David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2008. 427-487.
Individual liberty is the freedom to act and believe as one pleases. It is a widely controversial issue when it comes to the power of the government policing over individual�s freedoms. In this paper, I am going to compare two well known philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls. In part one, I will explain the political and social positions taken by each philosopher. I will explain how Thomas Hobbes is associated with the �social contract theory,� and how John Rawls� theory of government is a �theory of justice.� In doing so, I will describe their different viewpoints on the government and its power over the people. In Part two, I will describe the differences between Hobbes and Rawls. I will argue that Rawls position on the government is the most reasonable, and I will explain why I believe so. In part three, I will explain my own theory and viewpoint with the example of sex laws, including prostitution. With this example, I will tell how and why I believe individual liberty is important. In part four, I will explain how someone might disagree with my position. I will explain how conservative individuals would argue that the government should regulate sexual activity to protect the greater good of society. Finally, I will conclude with discussing the power of the government and individual liberties in today�s society.
Many libertarians have advocated for individual liberties in regards to property ownership, the pursuit of happiness and political involvement etc. However the role of the governments is central to this discussion. Should privatization and ownership be controlled by the government in power? Or should the government just let the invisible hand of capitalism fix any issues that occurs. This essay will address the reason, according to Mill that government should allow for a wide scope for individual liberties. In order to understand this argument, it is important to know the importance of individual liberties, not only for man but for women as well. Men and women both benefit from having a lot of individual liberties. This essay will present the
John Stuart Mill discusses the concept of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus on his ideas of the harm principle and touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom of action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts on the concept of liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts of the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained.