UNIT 3 LIBERTY*

Structure
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Kinds of Liberty
3.3 Two Aspects of Liberty
3.4 The Concept of Liberty in Indian framework
3.5 Liberty and Freedom
3.6 Let Us Sum Up
3.7 Key Words
3.8 Further Readings and References
3.9 Answers to Check Your Progress

3.0 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the present unit are to discuss,
 the major kinds of liberty from the perspective of the socio-political and philosophical
point of view.
 two major aspects of liberty: positive and negative.
 how the concept of liberty conceive by Indian thinkers and their response.
 the relationship between freedom and liberty.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Liberty is where one can enjoy the freedom to live their life in the way that they want, without
interference from other people or the authorities. The word ‘liberty’ is derived from the Latin
word ‘liber’ or ‘librates’ which means freedom or free will. The synonyms of liberty are— to
be free, independence, sovereignty, liberation, free will. Sometimes liberty is differentiated
from freedom by using the word “freedom” primarily, if not exclusively, to mean the ability
to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; and using the word “liberty” to mean the
absence of arbitrary restraints, taking into account the rights of all involved. In this sense, the
exercise of liberty is subject to capability and is limited by the rights of others. Thus, liberty
entails the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of

*
Manik Konch, Doctoral Research Scholar, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian
Institute of Technology, Bombay.

29
their freedom.
There are many philosophers who have defined the idea called liberty in different ways. For
instance, Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) wrote: “a polity in which there is
the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of
speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the
governed” (Meditation Part I). In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) also says, “a
free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not
hindered to do what he hath the will to do” (Leviathan, Part II, Ch. XXI).
On the other hand, has opposed such definitions of liberty. Particularly, Hobbes and Sir
Robert Filmer’s definition of liberty. As Filmer says, ‘A liberty for everyone to do what he
likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws’. Disagreeing with some of these
ideas, John Locke (1632-1704) responded by writing,
In the state of nature, liberty consists of being free from any superior power on Earth. People are not under
the will or lawmaking authority of others but have only the law of nature for their rule. In political society,
liberty consists of being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the
commonwealth. People are free from the dominion of any will or legal restraint apart from that enacted by
their own constituted lawmaking power according to the trust put in it. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert
Filmer defines it: ‘A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any
laws.’ Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is
to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no
restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the
lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things
that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary
wills of others. (Two Treatise of Government, Part II).
Another conceptual framework for understanding the idea of liberty has been given by John
Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in his book On Liberty. He differentiates between liberty as the
freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion. He emphasizes on two aspects of liberty
namely, positive and negative. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of
acting — in such a way as to take control of one’s life and realize one’s fundamental
purposes, while Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has
the negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense.
Although, the concept of liberty comes from the Greek tradition, but there is a slight difference
between ancient Greek and the Modern concept of liberty. As we have discussed the modern
conception of liberty, we also need to see how ancient philosophers have defined liberty. In
ancient Greek, to be free was not to have a master, to be independent from a master (to live as
one likes). That was the original conception of Greek freedom and liberty which Aristotle

30
(384-322 BC) discusses in his book Politics. His conception of liberty is based on democratic
principles and the idea of equality. He wrote:
This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a
man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live
as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the
claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it
contributes to the freedom based upon equality. (Politics, book.VI).
But this definition of Aristotle only applied to free men or citizens of Athens. In ancient
Athens women and slaves were not counted as a citizens. So, they have no freedom to cast
vote, and they had to depend on a male relative to hold office for the legal and social right.

3.2 KINDS OF LIBERTY

The concept of liberty occupies a central place in social and political philosophy like other
significant concepts like justice, equality etc. Like other concepts, liberty also has some major
types which are divided on the basis of the various social and political conditions of a nation
or state. There are five major kinds of liberties namely, natural, civil, political, economic, and
national liberty. These are briefly explained in the following sections.
3.2.1 Natural Liberty
Natural liberty is a kind of liberty which people enjoyed in the imaginary ‘state of nature’
when civil society did not exist. The natural liberty is an unrestricted and unlimited kind of
freedom like how birds are free to fly wherever they want to fly in the sky. Its a naturally
gifted right given to the human beings by their birth. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was
the chief exponent of the concept of natural liberty. In his opinion, man lost natural liberty
with the emergence of the state or civil society. But such a concept of liberty is illusory, as
from the political point of view, natural liberty cannot exist without or prior to a state. Many
thinkers have questioned the tenability of this idea by saying that the conception of natural
liberty is a contradiction in ‘terms’ because law or authority is the essential condition of
liberty but the same was conspicuously absent in the ‘state of nature’. In the ‘state of nature’
liberty was enjoyed only by the strong. In a civil society, on the other hand, liberty is the
common possession of all.
3.2.2 Political Liberty
Political liberty refers to the freedom where every citizen should get right to access, and share
in authority, of the state. It gets realized in a democracy or democratic states. As we know
that without political liberty, neither, the state can be democratic nor can the individual enjoy
full civil liberties. Civil liberty becomes meaningless if people do not possess the power to

31
compel the government to accept their viewpoint. Different philosophers variously define
political liberty. For instance, Stephen Leacock sees “political liberty as the right of the people
to choose their government which should be responsible to the general body of the people”.
Like Leacock, Herold Laski also defines it as “the power to be active in affairs of the state.
Political liberty is identical with constitutional liberty which means the democratic rule.”
Thus, we can summarize that political liberty is a kind of freedom where citizen can freely
access their political rights. The political liberties are namely, right to vote, right to elect,
right to criticize the government, and right to periodical election.
3.2.3 Economic Liberty
Like political liberty or freedom, every citizen also needs economic security to live their life.
Economic liberty means minimum material security to every citizen of a state. Without
economic liberty, civil and political liberties become meaningless. But the economic liberty
does not mean free competition in the economic sphere. In other words, it lies in the absence
of gross inequalities of wealth that may enable some to obtain an unfair control over the lives
and happiness of others by the mere fact of their economic superiority. It implies a socialist
or socialistic system of economy. It may not mean economic equality but it means removal of
wide economic disparities.
Economic liberty protects the private property of citizens, right to work, but also right to a
decent wage, right to leisure and right to social insurances like old age, sickness, disablement
and unemployment insurances.
3.2.4 Civil Liberty
Without civil liberty, one cannot think of economic and political liberty. Civil liberty implies
freedom enjoyed by the people in civil society. Civil liberty denotes the civil rights which are
guaranteed by the state. This kind of civil rights consist of, right to life, liberty, property,
speech, press, association, education etc. Civil liberty will become stronger if more civil rights
are included. But the civil right has both positive and negative aspects. Positive aspect implies
the right to free action, the opportunity of self-explanation and self-expression while the
negative aspect of liberty implies freedom or the immunity of an individual from interference
on the part of others. Thus, political scientists Raymond Gattel says, ‘Civil liberty consists of
the rights and privileges which the state creates and protects for its subjects”.
3.2.5 National Liberty
National liberty looks like natural liberty because how natural liberty implies a person can
access his freedom by birth in this world, similarly, national liberty implies that every nation

32
has a birth right to be free from the political domination of others. It is synonymous with
national independence or Swarājya. It is based on the principle of self-determination. Every
nation has a right to regulate its national life according to its own will. For every nation,
freedom is the necessary condition for development. Without freedom, citizen can’t access
cultural, social, economic or political development. It is not possible so long as one nation is
ruled by another, i.e., before 1947, citizen of India does not have national liberty. It was only
possible when India became independent from British rule and constituted a sovereign
country. Thus, national liberty implies the birthright of every nation to be free from external
control or domination.
Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. What is the difference between Civil Liberty and National Liberty? Explain.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………
2. What is Political Liberty?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………

3.3 TWO ASPECTS OF LIBERTY: POSITIVE AND

NEGATIVE
We have mentioned earlier that liberty has two aspects namely, positive and negative.
Positive liberty views of being free; it may be understood as self-mastery and self-
determination; and includes ones having a role in choosing who governs the society of which
one is a part. While negative liberty views of the absence of external limits or absence of
obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are

33
available to one in this negative sense. Negative liberty is usually attributed to individuals
while positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collective individuals. For example, suppose
person X is driving a car through the city, and X come to a junction in the road. X turns left,
but no one was forcing X to go one way or the other. Next X comes to a crossroad. X turns
right, but no one was preventing X from going left or straight on. There is no traffic to speak
of, and there are no diversions or police roadblocks. So, X seems, as a driver, to be completely
free. But this picture of X’s situation might change quite dramatically if we consider that the
reason X went left and then right is that X is addicted to cigarettes and X is desperate to get to
the tobacconists before it closes. Rather than driving, X feels, X is being driven, as X’s urge to
smoke leads X uncontrollably to turn the wheel first to the left and then to the right.
Moreover, X is perfectly aware that X is turning right at the crossroads means X will probably
miss a train that was to take X to an appointment X cares about very much. X longs to be free
of this irrational desire that is not only threatening X’s longevity but is also stopping X right
now from doing what he thinks X ought to be doing.
If anyone carefully examines X’s driving story, then they will find two contradictory views of
liberty. On the one hand, one can think of liberty as the absence of obstacles external to the
agent. X is free if no one is stopping X from doing whatever he might want to do. In the above
story, X appears to be free in this very sense. On the other hand, one can think of liberty as
the presence of control on the part of the agent. To be free, one must be self-determined,
which is to say that X must be able to control his own destiny in his own interests. In the above
story X appears, in this sense, to be unfree: X is not in control of his own destiny, as X is failing
to control a passion that X himself would rather be rid of and which is preventing X from
realizing what X recognizes to be his true interests. One might say that while the first view
liberty is simply about how many doors are open to the agent, on the second view it is more
about going through the right doors for the right reasons.
Although these two conceptions of liberty have been developed by many philosophers and
thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, J. S. Mill, Karl Marx, and Isaiah Berlin, but here we would
briefly discuss Isaiah Berlin’s (1909-1999) views on the two aspects of liberty. The idea of
positive liberty appears to have been borrowed by Isaiah Berlin from Aristotle’s definition of
citizenship which is derived from the social role of the freemen of classical Athens. Berlin, in
his essay ‘Two Concept of Liberty’ (1958), Berlin argued that the liberty is granted to
citizens to choose their government. Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent
valid human ideals and that both forms of liberty are necessary for any free and civilised
society. Berlin’s conception of negative liberty represents a different, and sometimes

34
contradictory, understanding of the concept of liberty, which needs to be carefully examined.
For him, negative liberty constitutes an alternative, and sometimes even opposed, concept to
positive liberty, and one often closer to the intuitive, modern usage of the word. According to
Berlin, we use the negative concept of liberty in attempting to answer the question “What is
the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do
or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?”, whereas we use the
positive concept in attempting to answer the question “What, or who, is the source of control
or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?” (1958, 121–
22). But he did not argue that the concept of positive liberty should be rejected, instead he
recognised it as one human value among many, and one which is necessary for any free
society. Therefore, Berlin argued that positive liberty was a genuine and valuable version of
liberty, so long as it was identified with the autonomy of individuals, and not with the
achievement of goals that individuals ‘ought to’ ‘rationally’ desire.
Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. What are the two aspects of Liberty? Explain.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………

3.4 THE CONCEPT OF LIBERTY IN INDIAN FRAMEWORK

Like their western counterparts, Indian philosophers have also discussed the ideas associated
with the concept of liberty, yet there are many confusions. In India, the concept of liberty is
synonyms with the word ‘Mokṣa’ which means free from all kinds of bondage. In other words,
mokṣa is the concept of ultimate freedom and liberation in Indian philosophy and religion.
The word Mokṣa is derived from the Sanskrit word muc, meaning “to free,” it is the release
from the life-death cycle and from the limitations of worldly existence. To reach the state of
mokṣa is to attain absolute freedom, peace and oneness with the Divine. The term mokṣa is
also called as vimokṣa, vimukti, mukti. This idea of mokṣa is used as a spiritual sense. In the

35
epistemological and psychological senses, moksha refers to freedom from ignorance: self-
realization and self-knowledge.
But the idea of liberty, as we are understanding it in this unit, is always used in a political
sense. In this regard we find that many political thoughts developed during the Ashoka
Dynasty (322-180 BCE) and Maurya Dynasty (322-180 BCE). For instance, in the Maurya
Empire of ancient India citizens of all religions and ethnic groups had some rights to
freedom, tolerance, and equality. They also tried to eradicate slavery from their state. King
Ashoka emphasized the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The
slaughter or capture of prisoners of war also appears to have been abolished by Ashoka.
In contemporary India, Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950) pointed out that in Europe the ideal of
external freedom is important, whereas in India the theory of inner freedom has been stressed.
According to Aurobindo, “they (the Europeans) have found out the way to external freedom.
We have found out the internal freedom. We meet and give each other what we have gained.
We have learned from them to aspire after external as they will learn from us to aspire after
internal freedom” (Speech. p.15). This statement of Sri Aurobindo reflected the attitude of
accepting the other and learning from the other with respect and freedom.

3.5 LIBERTY AND FREEDOM

‘Liberty’ and ‘Freedom’ are words that have often been used interchangeably, yet a deeper
analysis reveals that they are laden with quite distinct connotations. Most European
languages have only one word to translate both ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’, e.g., ‘libertà’
(Italian), ‘liberté’ (French), ‘libertad’ (Spanish), ‘Freiheit’ (German), ‘frihet’ (Swedish), and
‘vrijheid’ (Dutch). Moreover, many English and American writers use ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’
as if they were synonyms. As we have said that liberty is defined as the right and the power to
believe, act and express oneself as one chooses; of being free from restriction; and having the
freedom of choice. It is the condition of having the power to act and speak without restraints.
On the contrary, freedom is defined as the state of being free to enjoy political, social, and
civil liberties. It is the power to decide one’s actions and the state of being free from restraints
or confinement.
Liberty is very much individual centric as compared to freedom. ‘Liberty’ is the power to act
and express oneself according to one’s will, while ‘freedom’ is the power to decide one’s
actions. Liberty is the condition wherein individuals behave according to their will and govern
themselves, taking responsibility for their actions and behaviors. Having liberty does not
necessarily mean going against ethics and moral values. It is classified into: positive liberty

36
wherein individuals act on their own will without being influenced by social restrictions and
taboos, and negative liberty wherein individuals act without being influenced or coerced by
other people.
Moreover, ‘freedom’ is a concept which is more associated with an individual’s connection
with the state rather than with other individuals and circumstances. The word freedom comes
from the English word signifying free will whereas “liberty” comes from Latin word
‘librates’, France ‘liberté’ etc., which means the condition of freeman and liberty must
conform to what is morally right and ethical. More precisely to say, liberty is unrestricted
freedom. One can enjoy liberty fearlessly-positive liberty while freedom is autonomy for a
particular thing or action. Even in the Constitution of India and in its Preamble enshrines
liberty while Article 19(1) (a)-(g) incorporate different types of freedom. Similarly, Article
21 also enshrines Personal liberty in order to make life fearless.
Above discussed differences are more or less based upon on socio-political conception of
freedom and liberty. For instance, J.S. Mill advocated that liberty shall not be negative, i.e.
without restriction. This is the reason why democratic constitutions set a goal of liberty
whereas they provide different types of freedom to achieve the goal of ensuring that rights of
all citizens are balanced. It ensures that both individual and social interests are well-balanced
and work smoothly in the society. On the contrary, Berlin does not believe the positive liberty
in the strict sense. For example, a blind person cannot blame to the authority for his liberty
that he cannot watch a movie in the hall because of his/her physical weakness.
From the philosophical perspective, freedom is a natural property of human beings — the
property that makes them persons as distinct from specimens of just another animal species.
Within the domain of human persons, it is an objective universal, on a par with speech and the
intellectual faculties. It defines the natural-law condition of freedom among likes. Liberty, in
contrast, is the legal status of a member of an organised group or society. It is not a property
of a natural person but of a position in a group or society. It applies not to natural but to
artificial persons (e.g., citizens). Consequently, it is a relative notion in the same sense that
citizenship is a relative concept.
Check Your Progress III

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.

1. What is the relation between Liberty and freedom?

37
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………

3.6 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we have mainly tried to explain different kinds of liberty from the perspective of
the socio-political and philosophical point of view, with some main issues like what the
relation between liberty and freedom is, and what the positive and negative aspects of liberty
are. An attempt has also been made to understand the concept of liberty from the perspective of Indian
thinkers.

3.7 KEY WORDS

Liberty: the power to act and express oneself according to one’s will.
Freedom: the power to decide one’s actions.

3.8 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Aristotle, Politics, translated by W D. Ross, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Aurelius, Marcus, “Meditations”, Book I, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature,
Mackkai: Berta Books 1999.
Berlin, Isaiah, “Two Concept of Liberty”, Argument for Freedom, pp. 56-99, 1958.
Carter, Ian, “Positive and Negative Liberty”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), 2018.
Eckstein, Walter, “Rousseau's Theory of Liberty”, Rousseau’s Freiheitslehre by Otto Vossler
(Review), Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun. 1965), pp. 291-294.
Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, London: Penguin Publisher, 2002.
Khosla, Madhav, The Indian Constitution, (Oxford India Short Introductions Series), Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2012.
Locke, John, Two Treatises on Government: A Translation into Modern English, London:
Churchill, 2009.
Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, Kitchener: Batoche Books, 1859-2001.
Verma, Vishwanath Prasad, “Shri Aurobindo Concept of Fredom and Western Political
Idealism: A reconstruction and Comparative Study”, The Indian Journal of Political Science,
Vol. 17, No. 2 (April-June 1956), pp. 105- 134.

38
3.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Check Your Progress I

1. Civil liberty implies freedom enjoyed by the people in civil society. Civil liberty denotes
the civil rights which are guaranteed by the state. This kind of civil rights consist of, right to
life, liberty, property, speech, press, association, education etc. Civil liberty will become
stronger if more civil rights are included.

National liberty implies that every nation has a birth right to be free from the political
domination of others. It is synonymous with national independence or Swarājya. It is based
on the principle of self-determination. Every nation has a right to regulate its national life
according to its own will. For every nation, freedom is the necessary condition for
development.

2. Political liberty refers to the freedom where every citizen should get right to access, and
share in authority, of the state. It gets realized in a democracy or democratic states. As we
know that without political liberty, neither, the state can be democratic nor can the individual
enjoy full civil liberties.

Check Your Progress II

1. Liberty has two aspects namely, positive and negative. Positive liberty views of being free;
it may be understood as self-mastery and self-determination; and includes ones having a role in
choosing who governs the society of which one is a part. While negative liberty views of the
absence of external limits or absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative
liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Negative liberty is
usually attributed to individuals while positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collective
individuals.

Check Your Progress III

1. Liberty is individual centric as compared to freedom. ‘Liberty’ is the power to act and
express oneself according to one’s will, while ‘freedom’ is the power to decide one’s actions.
Liberty is the condition wherein individuals behave according to their will and govern
themselves, taking responsibility for their actions and behaviors. Having liberty does not
necessarily mean going against ethics and moral values. Freedom is a concept which is more
associated with an individual’s connection with the state rather than with other individuals and

39
circumstances. More precisely to say, liberty is unrestricted freedom.

40