Main Article Content

Pedro Schwartz Girón
Universidad San Pablo CEU, Madrid, España
Spain
Biography
Vol 17 No 2 (2010): International Tribute to Esperanza Guisán (Volume I), Articles, pages 41-53
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15304/t.17.2.734
Submitted: 16-01-2013 Accepted: 16-01-2013
Copyright How to Cite

Abstract

This paper aims to clarify and defend the distinction by Isaiah Berlin between “negative liberty” on the one hand, and “positive” and “communal liberty” on the other. This distinction has been attacked by those who believe it breaks the necessary harmony with equality or fraternity, virtues that many progressive authors place on the same plane as freedom. Instead of speaking of “negative liberty,” as proposed by Berlin, we propose to call it “classical” or “formal” liberty. In turn, rather than speaking of “positive” liberty, we propose to say “possessive liberty” and “communal liberty.” Thus, Isaiah Berlin should have spoken of three concepts of liberty and have stressed that the latter two may be destructive of the first. Possessive and communal liberty can be significant aspects of a society, but should not be confused with personal liberty. The promotion of possessive and comunal liberty is often accompanied by invasions of formal liberty.
Cited by

Article Details