Positive and negative liberty: Taylor's critique of negative liberty

Mill & Charles Taylor's concepts of liberty

Two concepts of liberty': J. S Mill's emphasis on individualism as liberty, and Charles Taylor's classification of the exercise concept and action as forms of liberty

In discussing the concept of liberty, two important points come into mind: what liberty is and it represents, and what it is not. Liberty is associated with the concept of thinking and acting freely, and the curtailment of these activities constitutes what liberty is not. Thus, liberty is perceived as a "positive" concept because it benefits the individual; what it is not, therefore, is considered "negative."

Indeed, discourses on the concept of liberty had been a heated issue among political philosophers for centuries, and increased gradually with the emergence of 19th century, wherein new ideologies and philosophies paved the way for intellectual development to occur in human society. Among these political philosophers who have contemplated the deeper meaning and significance of liberty to human society are John Stuart Mill and Charles Taylor. Each philosopher presented his own concept of what constitutes positive liberty, discussing within the context of negative liberty as well.

In this paper, the researcher discusses and analyzes the concept of liberty, positive liberty, and negative liberty in the context of Mill and Taylor's writings. Referring to Mill's "On liberty" and Taylor's "What's wrong with negative liberty," this paper posits that while Mill and Taylor have similar conceptions of liberty, they differ in operationalizing this important concept. That is, while Mill considers liberty as a right that is reflected through the pursuit of individualism and welfare of the common good, Taylor argues that liberty must be applied in the context it is used, that is, identifying the "qualitative aspect" in which liberty takes place. Further discussion of these important points is included in the texts that follow.

Mill's discussion in "On liberty" looks into the philosopher's translational analysis of liberty with individualism. That is, for Mill, liberty is the right of the individual where s/he is free to think, speak, and act on whatever issues or concerns of the society. He elucidates on this important aspect of liberty as follows: "...human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition..." In this passage, it is apparent that Mill subscribes to a person's sense of individualism in determining his/her prerogative to exercise his/her liberty. Thus, the exercise of liberty, while it is a free privilege of every individual, is ultimately dependent on the individual himself/herself, on his/her decision to exercise and use it to benefit not only the self, but also others.

However, Mill also cautions his readers about the detriment that comes out from exercising liberty with too much freedom, especially when acting out this freedom. For him, it is also important to know that liberty, while dependent on the individual's decision alone, should also take into account the consequences that will come out upon the accomplishment of an action. That is, it is vital that the individual think of the 'bigger picture': will the action benefit the common good, or will it benefit my personal interests only? Positive liberty, hence, becomes more vital when it goes beyond thinking and speaking, and the individual engages in doing a particular activity, knowing that s/he has the freedom to do so. Mill posits on this issue, "The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people...It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress."

Parallel with Mill's argument on liberty, Taylor also elucidates a similar point in his essay, "What's wrong with negative liberty?" In this discourse, he criticizes the concept of negative liberty, which is identified as the freedom from an "area in which a man can act unobstructed by others." This concept, formulated by Isaiah Berlin, is considered by Taylor as disregarding the context in which liberty is exercised by the individual. For him, negative liberty should not be labeled as such, for liberty in its most general sense should always be applied in its "qualitative discrimination as to motive." This means that, like Mill's argument, there are actions that are 'hindered' either because they are detrimental to the majority or is too trivial to become an issue of obstructing an individual's liberty.