Social Contract Theory

Sample Lesson - Introduction

Lesson 1.02: Two Kinds of Liberty

The concept of freedom is roughly as important to social contract theorists as the + sign is to mathematicians. So we're going to take a brief detour from the crazy antics of Locke and Hobbes to investigate this surprisingly complex concept.

If someone were to ask you to imagine a situation of pure, unfettered freedom, what would be the first thing to come to mind?

Sure, you might be one of the twelve people on the planet to think first of Hobbes's nightmarish state of nature, but most people tend to associate freedom—or liberty—with rainbows, unicorns, and other such happiness.

Think about it: have you ever heard anyone say with total conviction, "What this world really needs is less freedom"? Unless you happen to have the world's most curmudgeonly granddad, we seriously doubt it. You'd think that, given that most people really, really like the idea of being free, the same number of people could tell you what freedom is.

Soldiers preparing to fight for the freedom to stage Civil War reenactments. (Source)

You'd be wrong.

Freedom, liberty, whatever you decide to call it, it's a complicated beast. Philosophers have identified two different types of freedom, and the crazy-but-true story is that they often seem to conflict with one another.

In this lesson, we'll look into those different types of freedoms, and we'll delve more deeply into that distinction between "liberty" and "license" we got from Locke in the last reading.

At the very least, it'll help explain what your cantankerous old granddad was really going on about.

Sample Lesson - Reading

Reading 1.1.02a: Andrew Heywood, Political Theory: An Introduction

More introductions, comin' at ya. This time, grab your copy of Political Theory: An Introduction by Andrew Heywood, and read pages 253-264 about—you guessed it—freedom.

If you feel lost, you can head over to the next reading for some guidance.

Sample Lesson - Reading

Reading 1.1.02b: A Review of an Introduction

Andrew Heywood walked you through a day in the life of freedom—or is it license?

Whether or not we can make a distinction between freedom and license is the first major problem in this reading. Since freedom is typically considered to be a good thing, it would make sense to use a different word to describe what people do when they infringe on the rights of others. Still, the line separating liberty from license is as blurry as a window that, uh, has been drenched in chicken fat.

Then, just in case things were getting too easy, Heywood reminds us that freedom comes in two flavors, neither of which are chocolate.

• Positive Freedom
• Negative Freedom

We won't lie: it's tough to get the hang of the difference between the two, especially if you haven't thought a whole lot about political philosophy before (and let's face it, you probably haven't). However, the most common way of thinking about them is probably like this:

• Negative freedom is "freedom from…"
• Positive freedom is "freedom to…"

We know, we know; Heywood himself cautions against this way of thinking on the very first page of the reading, and he's absolutely correct: it's a linguistic nightmare, and it will usually backfire.

But…

For the sake of illustration, we're going to use it just this once for one single example, and then we'll never think about negative and positive freedom in these terms ever again.

We promise.

The Example

So there's a man named Frank who lives in California, and he wants to travel to Germany to see the Brandenburg Gate. Lucky for Frank, he has a valid passport and he's not on any sort of no-fly list in the United States. Additionally, there's no German law that would prohibit him from entering the country. It seems, then, that we can say with confidence that Frank possesses freedom from any sort of government intrusion that would keep him from reaching his destination in Germany. In terms of negative freedom, Frank is completely, 100% free.

But did we mention that Frank is homeless, and his entire life savings amounts to $2.13 in change? The fact that he can't afford the ticket means that, in terms of positive freedom, Frank is not free—that is, he does not have the freedom to travel to Germany.

"Aw, so maybe he isn't so free after all," you may be saying to yourself. Well, actually, he's completely free—in a strictly negative sense. No one is standing in the way of Frank's purchase of the ticket. In terms of positive freedom, however, you're right. Frank isn't free to visit Germany because he doesn't have the means to do so.

And there you have it: that illustrates not only the difference between negative and positive freedom, but the difference between our own two political parties' understandings of freedom in the United States.

Political Parties

Remember when we said that negative and positive liberty often conflict with one another? Now you'll see how. For a party that values negative liberty above all else (we'll call them "Republicans"), the fact that Frank isn't prevented from visiting Germany by the government is sufficient…but not because they simply get a kick out of watching people's dreams die.

Whether you agree with it or not, Republicans have a philosophical reason for not wanting to foster positive liberty in cases like Frank's. We'll break it down for you:

• Fostering positive liberty means redistributing wealth.
• Redistributing wealth means taxing the rich at a higher rate.
• Taxing the rich at a higher rate means that certain people—the rich, in this case—are not free to do with their own money as they please.
• Certain people not being free to do with their own money as they please means a decrease in negative liberty (freedom from government intervention), which many Republicans value over just about everything else.

The exception to this rule is the Republican who is also a social conservative; this type of Republican typically promotes negative freedom when it comes to economic issues, but advocates strict limits to negative freedom when it comes to what they argue are "moral issues;" issues such as the freedom to marry a person of the same sex, use drugs, solicit prostitutes, and so on.

Got all that? Now head on over to the activity for more.

Sample Lesson - Activity

Activity 1.02: Checkmate

Step 1: Make a list of a dozen or so activities that are both illegal and immoral. It doesn't matter which ones you choose. Go nuts.

Step 2: Once you've done that, put a check next to each and every one of these activities that you would totally do if society suddenly collapsed and there was no one to punish you for doing them. And be honest.

Step 3: Now look at your list again. How many checks are there? The more checks there are, the more "license" there is likely to be in society, and thus the more Hobbesian your state of nature will probably be; the fewer checks there are, the more Lockean or Rousseauean (totally not a word, we know) your state of nature is likely to be.

Somewhere near/on your list, jot down which category you fall into.

P.S. Don't throw this list away; it will make a handy point of reference for the next activity.

Step 4: Since we humans have a tendency to screw up now and then, it's not only possible but probable that there are some legal restrictions on behavior that have no good reason for existing.

Now that you've got your list done, it's time for the fun part: making value judgments. Decide which of the items you wrote down should continue to count as license and which, if any, we should actually count as a freedom.

For each item, write a couple of sentences explaining why it should be considered either license or liberty. In other words, tell us why you think the item should be legal or is right to be prohibited.

Step 5: The more things you consider freedoms, the more free (or "liberal," in philosophical terms) your ideal state would likely be. But don't get too carried away, or you'll end up back in the state of nature.

Somewhere near/on your list, jot down how free/liberal your ideal state seems to be.

Step 6: When you're done, upload everything below.