Freiheit – Liberté

Freedom is an important concept for Western Civilization.  It is especially important to young people who are experiencing for the first time a new horizon free from the constraints of living under their parents’ roof.  But Freedom is a difficult concept also.

There are at least two notions of freedom, and the two differ categorically.  There is the negative sense of freedom, a liberty from external constraints.  This is the concept most young people intend when they speak of freedom.  But there is also a positive sense of freedom.  This sense is similar to the concept of ability.  To make it short, there is 1) a freedom from (negative freedom), and 2) a freedom to (positive freedom).  Under the former we are not restricted by rules and perhaps in modern political parlance free from government intrusion. Under the latter we are or have the ability and opportunity to do.  We are free to act in some way or take possession of something. 

Negative freedom is never total, unless of course one has no residence, no job, no friends, no relatives, no money, no property and no responsibilities.  But no one desires such a situation, so no one desires a total negative freedom.  Our young people are not aware of this when they have their first experience of liberty from parental control.  Only when one meets a totally destitute, homeless person does one realize that such a person is totally free in the negative sense.  The hobo and the homeless are free in this sense, but do we wish to be homeless, jobless and friendless, when we wish for freedom?

The positive sense of freedom is most important.  One cannot be really free unless one is able to be so - unless one has the opportunities available to him/her to act in accordance with what they desire.  Here freedom is even a more difficult  concept than freedom in the negative sense; perhaps this is why we often do not speak of it and concentrate on the negative sense of being free.  So, to enhance the liberty of persons we are required to open to those persons every opportunity to enhance their liberty.  This is in reality the task of governmental, educational, moral and legal institutions – to provide opportunity.  Freedom to travel, one of our fundamental freedoms, entails roads and other means of transport, and that entails government.  Freedom to know entails educational institutions where research and learning can take place, and that entails either government or other educational structures such as can be found in religious institutions.  Freedom to communicate with like minded individuals entails such things as radio, telephones and the internet, and that entails regulations in order that communication is adequate and orderly.  In fact one might argue, I think effectively, that in order to have a negative freedom, a positive freedom is required.  In other words, put simply, to be free from constraint, one requires an ability to be so constraint-less. Here governmental, legal and moral institutions are likewise required.

I distinguish ‘should’ from ‘ought’, but leaving that for another day. One of the most important of our positive freedoms is the freedom to do what we should/ought do.  Without the ability to do what one should/ought do, one requires the ability and opportunity to so do.  To be truly free one needs the ability to do what it is that one should/ought to do, and that entails legal and moral institutions.  It is not merely an ability to act according to our desires, but to act as one should/ought.  To be moral one must be able to act in accordance with what one should/ought.  This is the meaning of the proposition that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’.  We cannot and ought not hold someone responsible for not doing what one ought, unless one actually can (has the ability to) do what one ought.