Kant, Rousseau, Liberty Give Me

Kant, Rousseau, Liberty

Give Me Liberty and Give Me...the Categorical Imperative?"

Different concepts of liberty in "The Declaration of Independence," Rousseau, and Kant

We are a nation founded upon the principle of liberty. This idea of liberty as a universal value underlines almost every American's frame of references and assumptions, even if he or she has never paused to parse what it means to be free. "Give me liberty or give me death," still rings in the ears of our collective unconsciousness. But what is meant by liberty -- whose definition? To take just one sampling of the varied definitions that attach to liberty, a quick sampling of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary yields this:

the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice 2 a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant:

PRIVILEGE b: permission especially to go freely within specified limits3: an action going beyond normal limits: as a: a breach of etiquette or propriety:

FAMILIARITY b:

RISK,

CHANCE < ook foolish liberties with his health> c: a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d: a distortion of fact 4: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours

The notion of freedom or liberty thus has a positive and strictly legal aspect, to be free of despotic control and physical constraints: "The positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges," to enjoy immunity, or, conversely it also has a negative legal definition, to violate certain rules. It can, colloquially, pertain to being able to exercise the power of choice or privilege, to do as one pleases, or to negatively take undue liberties with propriety ("Liberty," Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2008). The flexible definitions and resonances of the definition of liberty are similarly reflected in the ambiguous definitions provided by the authors of the American "Declaration of Independence," by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his "Discourse on the Origins of Inequality" and "The Social Contract" and Kant's "Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals." While the "Declaration" poses a positive legal definition of liberty, Kant and Rousseau offer philosophical and metaphysical definitions that complicate a purely political understanding of the notion of liberty.

The famous beginning of the "Declaration of Independence" implies that all human beings have certain inalienable rights that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" ("Declaration of Independence," Independence Hall Association, 1995) Liberty is a condition that makes a body essentially human, and like life itself, cannot be taken away except as a punishment. This pertains to the idea that liberty is the freedom to do as one chooses, and simply to choose in general without physical or legal constraint. Later in the document, the idea that to enjoy this philosophical notion of freedom, that freedom is part of the human condition, is attached to the notion of freedom. The authors assert that freedom means to be free of despotic and arbitrary control, specifically as enforced by a tyrannical authority.

The "Declaration of Independence" states that the nature of governments, unlike the nature of individual freedom, is that political institutions are not extant, pre-existing structures or bodies that exist as intrinsic to the human condition. Governments are formed by and derive from the consent of the governed. As the British king has acted in a tyrannical manner (or the British government, as the British king was the head of Parliament at the time) towards the colonies, the colonies have a right to dissolve their association and withdraw their consent. After a long list of British abuses, the colonies again invoke the concept of freedom, this time not in terms of a human person, but in terms of the state: "That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do" ("Declaration of Independence," Independence Hall Association, 1995) Thus the idea of freedom or liberty, as it derives from the free consent of the governed and free human persons, can also be characterized in terms of a unitary, free state. Because of the power of choice of the governed as a collective, now the United States colonies are free of their British obligations, and all former colonial residents are free of their obligations to pay taxes and to obey the crown.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his "Discourse on the Origins of Inequality" similarly advances the idea that autonomy is intrinsically attached to the human condition, as the human animal dwells in a state apart from conventional social institutions before entering into a social contract. Natural inequalities result because of differences of physical power, in such a state, almost immediately, and so-called savages are not really free, as they must constantly exist in a state of self-preservation. The concept of liberty arises not so much in the condition of humankind, but in the mind of humankind, and the awareness of the concept of liberty: "Nature lays her commands on every animal, and the brute obeys her voice. Man receives the same impulsion, but at the same time knows himself at liberty to acquiesce or resist: and it is particularly in his consciousness of this liberty that the spirituality of his soul is displayed" (Rousseau, "On the Origin of Inequality: Part I).

This power of choice, Rousseau asserts, is spiritual, and cannot be reduced to a physical, brutish essence. By implication, Rousseau seems to imply that savages and primitive peoples are not free, because they have no awareness of what liberty is, and they dwell purely in the realms of sensation, not knowledge. But although awareness is necessary for freedom, all states of awareness are not to be joined to the state of human liberty. After all, after governments were created to protect people who are aware to enable them to live better lives. But economic inequalities and political restraints took away human freedom, despite this first consciousness of freedom. "Such was, or may well have been, the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labor, slavery and wretchedness" (Rousseau, "On the Origin of Inequality: Part II").

Thus, for Rousseau liberty is a state of awareness in a philosophical and spiritual sense, but also in a material sense after the enforcement of a social contract, as inequality almost by definition means slavery and the type of despotism that the signers of the declaration were striving to circumvent as well. Later on, in his essay on "The Social Contract," Rousseau devotes even more attention to the equation of liberty with equality: "If we ask in what precisely consists the greatest good of all, which should be the end of every system of legislation, we shall find it reduce itself to two main objects, liberty and equality -- liberty, because all particular dependence means so much force taken from the body of the State and equality, because liberty cannot exist without it" (Rousseau, "The Social Contract," Book II). In direct reference to the issues that would later plague the American colonies, Rousseau wrote: "I am here assuming what I think I have shown; that there is in the State no fundamental law that cannot be revoked, not excluding the social compact itself; for if all the citizens assembled of one accord to break the compact, it is impossible to doubt that it would be very legitimately broken. Grotius even thinks that each man can renounce his membership of his own State, and recover his natural liberty and his goods on leaving the country. It would be indeed absurd if all the citizens in assembly could not do what each can do by himself" (Rousseau, "The Social Contract," Book III). While Rousseau prefers a government that is a republic rather than a pure democracy, believing that these governments are too fractious and prone to internal revolt ("He writes: were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men") ultimately he prefers more liberty than less, quoting "I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery" (Rousseau, "The Social Contract," Book III).

Rousseau offers a mix of philosophical notions of liberty with advice and opinions on how to structure a government that promotes equality and liberty, but not excessively so, that the will of the majority or strong overcomes the will or the rights of the minority. as, unlike the founders of America, Rousseau was not concerned with a real, live, specific historical situation he could to some extent afford to be more theoretical in his orientation. The philosopher Immanuel Kant was even more concerned with the philosophical notions of liberty, but he detached them from their functioning in government and instead was concerned about human being's innate liberty to do morally good or evil actions. Kant saw morality as existing not as something that could be constructed at will by human beings, but as something that existed for all time, and to be commensurate with the categorical imperative, people must act as if setting a law for conduct in an impartial manner for all time. To be free is to do good, and to act as a check upon your own immoral impulses and behaviors. Kant is concerned, as a Christian philosopher, with establishing the freedom of the will. Unlike Rousseau and the "Declaration of Independence" he does not look to nature to establish such freedom: