Social Sciences, asked by pramodpimple47, 2 months ago

this passage talks about the importance of equality and fraternity .​

Answers

Answered by ipsanath29
0

Answer:

Liberty is commonly represented in terms of ‘negative’ and ‘positive’

approaches. Negative freedom refers mainly to freedom from restraint.

People are free if no one is interfering with them, or preventing them

from doing what they are able to do. Positive freedom can refer to the

freedom to act, or to self-determination. In the first sense, positive

freedom is about power; people who are unable to do things are not

free to do them. In the second sense, positive freedom is about being

able to make decisions, and to choose.

Although the distinction is widely used, it does not make a great

deal of sense. The negative idea of freedom seems to require only that

other people should not intervene. Isaiah Berlin, who popularised

the concept, argued that people do not cease to be free because they

are unable to do something, but only if someone is interfering with

them.14 It is possible, if that is accepted, for people to be left in a

position where they are unable to act, but are still free. If, for example,

there has been an earthquake, and people are physically trapped under

the rubble, they have not ceased to be free. (This argument, or at least

one very like it, was made by Hayek.15) It follows that a rescuer from

the emergency services who tries to release survivors without obtaining

prior consent is interfering with their circumstances, and that must be

an infringement of their freedom. This is silly, and it takes a particular

kind of academic cleverness to convince oneself that it should be

taken seriously. Conversely, the positive idea of freedom, certainly as

it is represented by Berlin, seems to suggest that all that matters is

whether people are able to act, and not whether they are free from

constraint. If people are being directed, but the constraint is one they

might reasonably agree to, they are still free; and people can, in

Rousseau’s notorious phrase, be ‘forced to be free’.16 This is just as

ridiculous, and it does violence to the very idea of freedom.

The ideas of negative and positive freedom have taken root because

they are, at least, partly right. All freedom, Maccallum argues, has

three elements: it has to be freedom of a person; the person must be

free from restraint; and the person must be free to do something.17

That means that both negative and positive concepts are relevant to

any consideration of freedom. Many writers have tried to put their

arguments in terms of negative and positive freedom, even if they do

6

Liberty, equality, fraternity

not quite reflect what the writers mean to say. The following discussion

begins with those ideas, but it cannot finish with them, and other

dimensions of the arguments are considered subsequently

Explanation:

Similar questions