understanding isaiah berlin's 'two concepts of liberty'

In his Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin argues that there can be no one true value that we as a society ought to strive for, rather there are a multitude of (sometimes conflicting) values that people hold important. One such important value coveted by moralists of his time was the idea of “liberty.” Berlin ultimately explains that a society whose sole purpose is to bring about the most liberty can have negative consequences. Liberty, Berlin believes, is often ill-defined. He lays out two types of liberty, positive and negative, and explains why striving solely for either kind without the consideration of other virtues will not result in an ethical society. Further, he explains how an emphasis only on positive freedom can limit negative freedom and vice versa.

Negative liberty refers to what a person should be able to do without deliberate interference, or coercion, from others. A coerces B if A threatens to make B worse off for some decision or action B wants to take. For example, A can be the government threatening its citizens with prison time if they commit a crime (which usually makes someone worse off). He clarifies that this definition does not include an inability to do something due to nature, i.e. my inability to sprout wings and fly is not an infringement on my negative freedoms. Berlin goes on to explain how many individuals are and would be worse off if we make negative freedom the only virtue of society. Importantly, emphasis on only negative freedom implies the undermining of all other virtues of society. For example, negative freedom is not extremely important to those in poverty who cannot make use of it. If you are out starving on the streets, your main worry is about your next meal, not whether you are going to be interfered with. That is, your primary virtue may be the conflicting values of justice or equality instead of freedom, and actually, an emphasis on one of these other values could leave you better off. Berlin also responds to John Stuart Mill’s (and other libertarians’) claims that in order to uphold a system which values only freedom, its government should be allowed to interfere with anyone who tries to infringe on another’s negative liberties. Berlin says that this sort of negative liberty can be upheld even under autocratic rule, which most libertarians are staunchly against. The upshot of this point is to ask: if someone can be so devoted to the idea of self-governance, how can they only care about negative freedom which says nothing about who rules the people? Berlin answers that they cannot – they must also care about freedom in its positive sense.

Positive liberty is the freedom to make one’s own decisions in life and the freedom to not be a slave to another’s will. However, Berlin points out that too much of an emphasis on positive liberty can lead to a coercive government, and therefore limits negative liberty. For example, we might say that nicotine addicts are slaves to their addiction and are therefore unfree to make the decision to quit. If a society favors positive liberty above all else, the government could coerce its citizens into not being allowed to buy cigarettes, which would actually limit their negative liberty to not be interfered with while smoking. Here, Berlin distinguishes between “higher” and “lower” nature. Higher nature involves making rational decisions that serve to benefit you in the future, while lower nature involves irrational, spur of the moment decisions. It is unclear whether you are truly making your own decisions in life if you are a slave to your “lower self,” and this distinction allows for governments to encroach on citizens’ negative liberties for the citizens’ “own good.”

Berlin goes on to extend his idea that liberty should not be the only value of society to argue against monism of any kind. While monists believe in one true moral principle, be it liberty, happiness, or justice, pluralists such as Berlin believe that there are many principles that are important in a society. As he has shown through his distinctions between positive and negative liberties, though important in itself, unlimited freedom can conflict with other important values. In fact, Berlin brings up clear limits to freedom that are widely considered necessary. Children are required to go to school, which restricts their liberty in favor of the public virtue of education. Public executions are banned, which restricts people’s liberty to watch barbaric acts in favor of promoting the virtue of a civilized society. So, Berlin says, we must not try to find one value where there are many, because choosing one often leads to hypocrisy, as well as limitations on the others that people also find incredibly important.