Abstract
The opposition of negative and positive liberty the way it is presented in Isaiah Berlins essay “Two Concepts of Liberty” may be regarded as a pivotal question of liberal thought, although many liberal theorists doubts the adequacy of the difference between positive and negative liberty offered by Berlin. A standard approach suggests that liberty acts as a factor to which all basic human rights and freedoms can be reduced. Berlin aims to undermine this widely spread assumption of the liberal theory insisting on an incompatibility of liberties considered in their extremes. It is due to this reason that John Gray tags Berlins’ liberalism as “agonical”, that is, presupposing incompatibility and conflict of basic values.
The following interpretation answers Berlins views the best:
1. Negative liberty is neither the exclusive nor the most precise symbolic representation of “basic liberty”. On the contrary, “basic liberty”, choice as such, is represented on a two-way basis, namely, positive and negative.
2. The meaning of the notion “liberty” is always of high priority (historically, it is almost invariable) and is defined through the problem of limits of submission and compulsion. In other words, this meaning is defined via agonical incompatibility/incommensurability of positive and negative liberty – liberty as authority and liberty as disobedience.
3. The differentiation of the notions of negative and positive liberty would be appropriate as an operation to reveal some conceptual limits. If introduced, this distinction would not mean all liberties can, or must, be plotted out between the negative and positive departments, although in many cases liberties may be analyzed in their negative and positive aspects.
4. Supporting the relevance of protecting negative liberty, the right of nonintervention, Berlin also maintains the inevitable need for restricting the limits of choice. Such manifests run counter to liberal theories, which pledge unlimited expansion of rights and freedoms for all.
5. The so-called “basic” freedom is a tacit, but nevertheless, leading concept of Berlins philosophy. The theoretic directive that provides substantiation of “basic” liberty of a human being involves a plurality of values, equally finite, hence infeasibility of a single standard for their substantiation. Therefore, “basic” liberty may be described as a capability of a human being to act in accordance with free will, that is, without the basic morality, which governs the choice. This choice, often referred to as radical choice, or the one that is not based on sense, makes the essence of our social and political life. The problem of pluralistic substantiation of liberalism is for the most part due to limitations of universality claims of liberalism. Meanwhile, Berlins agonical liberalism is not so much a set of principles for building a liberal society as a critical theory that simultaneously acts as a defense strategy to protect liberal ideals. In this case the principle of universalism suggests that an “acceptable” or “normal” society is the one in which at least a few moral principles are considered universal (not contextual or local). Furthermore, an “acceptable” society allows a plurality of views and regards the social conflict as an accomplished fact, which should be mitigated rather than factored out.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
-
Miglė Lapėnaitė,
Motives for Women’s Participation in Military Conflicts: The Ukrainian Case
,
Politologija: Vol. 103 No. 3 (2021): Politologija
-
Sigita Trainauskienė,
ONE OF THE THREE: THE STATUS AND ROLE OF A SEIMAS’ SPEAKER
,
Politologija: Vol. 83 No. 3 (2016): Politologija
-
Inga Patkauskaitė-Tiuchtienė,
The Impact of Political Scandals on Trust in State Institutions: Lithuanian Case Analysis
,
Politologija: Vol. 98 No. 2 (2020): Politologija
-
Donatas Palavenis,
CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN AFGHANISTAN. DO THEORIES WORK IN PRACTICE?
,
Politologija: Vol. 87 No. 3 (2017): Politologija
-
NIJOLĖ KERŠYTĖ,
IDEOLOGY AND FICTION (“DIE HARD”)
,
Politologija: Vol. 69 No. 1 (2013): Specialusis numeris: „Politika ir medijos“
-
Lukas Pukelis,
Vilius Stančiauskas,
The Opportunities and Limitations of Using Artificial Neural Networks in Social Science Research
,
Politologija: Vol. 94 No. 2 (2019): Politologija
-
Giedrius Žvaliauskas,
The Topics of Politics and Energy Security in a Social Study of Europe
,
Politologija: Vol. 93 No. 1 (2019): Politologija
-
Rūta Žiliukaitė,
VOTING IN THE ELECTION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VOTERS’ SOCIAL NETWORKS
,
Politologija: Vol. 73 No. 1 (2014): Politologija
-
Gerda Vaičiūnaitė,
Eugenijus Dunajevas,
Interorganizational Cooperation and Youth Policy: Case of Utena
,
Politologija: Vol. 94 No. 2 (2019): Politologija
-
ZENONAS NORKUS,
WHY INTERWAR LITHUANIA DID LOSE VILNIUS AND CONTEMPORARY LITHUANIA LAGS BEHIND ESTONIA?
,
Politologija: Vol. 70 No. 2 (2013): Politologija