Negative and positive liberty and the freedom to choose in Isaiah Berlin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

IF 0.3 Q4 ECONOMICS Journal of Philosophical Economics Pub Date : 2018-09-01 DOI:10.46298/jpe.10715
Stefan. Collignon
{"title":"Negative and positive liberty and the freedom to choose in Isaiah Berlin and Jean-Jacques Rousseau","authors":"Stefan. Collignon","doi":"10.46298/jpe.10715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Berlin has made the famous distinction between negative and positive liberty. For many liberals, negative liberty is modern individual liberty manifested in markets, while interference by the State is a form of positive liberty. Berlin was also repelled by Rousseau's concept of the general will, which he considered as a form of collectivist holism. The paper argues that this philosophy is a mistaken interpretation of Berlin's two concepts of liberty and of Rousseau's general will. In a simple model of individual and collective choice under conditions of bounded rationality, it is shown that positive and negative liberty are interdependent. The collective choices made under positive liberty can be modeled as the stochastic version of Rousseau's general will, provided that liberal democracy enables the conditions of free public deliberation. In that case, the individual freedom cherished by Berlin is compatible with positive liberty.","PeriodicalId":41686,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10715","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Berlin has made the famous distinction between negative and positive liberty. For many liberals, negative liberty is modern individual liberty manifested in markets, while interference by the State is a form of positive liberty. Berlin was also repelled by Rousseau's concept of the general will, which he considered as a form of collectivist holism. The paper argues that this philosophy is a mistaken interpretation of Berlin's two concepts of liberty and of Rousseau's general will. In a simple model of individual and collective choice under conditions of bounded rationality, it is shown that positive and negative liberty are interdependent. The collective choices made under positive liberty can be modeled as the stochastic version of Rousseau's general will, provided that liberal democracy enables the conditions of free public deliberation. In that case, the individual freedom cherished by Berlin is compatible with positive liberty.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
消极自由和积极自由以及以赛亚·伯林和让·雅克·卢梭的选择自由
柏林对消极自由和积极自由做出了著名的区分。对许多自由主义者来说,消极自由是现代个人自由在市场上的表现,而国家干预则是积极自由的一种形式。柏林也排斥卢梭的公意概念,他认为这是集体主义整体主义的一种形式。本文认为,这种哲学是对柏林的两个自由概念和卢梭的共同意志的错误解释。在有限理性条件下的个人和集体选择的简单模型中,证明了积极自由和消极自由是相互依存的。在积极自由下做出的集体选择可以被建模为卢梭公意的随机版本,前提是自由民主能够提供自由公共审议的条件。在这种情况下,柏林所珍视的个人自由与积极自由是相容的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊最新文献
Perspectives on interpersonal utility comparisons: an analysis of selected models Review of Jon D. Erickson, The Progress Illusion: Reclaiming Our Future from the Fairytale of Economics, Washington, DC, Island Press, 2022, xx + 252 pp., hb, ISBN 978-1-64-283252-5 Lesen und Interpretieren der Wirtschaftsphilosophie von Ibn Khaldun Review of Șerban Oana, Cultural Capital and Creative Communication: (Anti-)Modern and (Non-)Eurocentric Perspectives Scarcity Concept in the contemporary mainstream economic science: an analysis of its ontological and epistemological ambiguity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1