Your freedom is my obligation, and vice versa. Freedom is not a single term, it implies other terms, like obligation, responsibility, autonomy, self-determination, reason, and purpose.
Freedom is a threefold term: X is (not) free from Y to do (not to do) Z. X: agent Y: constraint or obstacle Z: goal, or end. It combines positive and negative freedom into one formula.
Effective freedom vs. formal freedom. Is the freedom granted only a formal right, or a real possibility for me? I have the right to travel, but do I have the means to do it?
Freedom as autonomy vs freedom as doing what one wants. Autonomy as self-rule. What is the subject that claims to be free? This is freedom as self-realization. This means the every-day subject is not free. The subject that wants to be set free depends on the theory used: it could be the true or authentic self; or even a political or collective self: Nation, proletariat, general will, etc.
Freedom as political Participation vs. Freedom beginning where politics ends. This is Aristotle against Cicero. In a community-oriented version of freedom (Aristotle), we all gain more freedom only through the society that grants us these rights, hence we have to participate in politics. Or, one can view society always as restricting, alienating, or coercive: in this case, society has tpo grant us the right of non-participation. Modern civic societies.
A widely used distinction in the concept of freedom is the difference between positive and negative freedom. This distinction was suggested by a Russian political philosopher, Isaiah Berlin, in 1958, adopting Kant’s ideas about freedom. Positive freedom is the ability to act in accordance with one’s will; it is the ability to determine one’s own destiny. Negative freedom is the absence of external forces that determine one’s action. Freedom, at its core, must be the absence of restrictions; it is simply lack that nevertheless is not some absolute void, but metaphorically speaking the empty space that invites us to define it with the signature of our lives. Positive freedom, the freedom to do what one wants, is the idea of freedom as the realization of an inherent impetus, like self-mastery, self-determination or self-realization. We think of freedom mostly as a positive ability to determine our own lives, an ability to pursue our wishes and desires, and to give form to our own life. But what if freedom is not a positive term, what if it is simply another word for emptiness, and consists only in a lack of determination? We oftentimes experience moments of freedom as painful, because we have to make decisions, and we don’t have instinctive knowledge about what to choose. It is painful because we are confronted with the lack of determination. In these situations, a gap opens between our actual behavior and our morality: conscience or knowledge does not compel us to take a particular course of action, we are ultimately free, and we live with the risk to make choices that can be harmful to ourselves. Free and morally correct actions are not the same. Humans are also free to do bad things.
Equality can be seen as synonymous with justice itself. Whereas freedom is primarily an individual value, and describes an essential trait of human nature, equality refers first of all to a basic principle for the structuring of societies. It is a fundamental value and a driving force for historical change, because no human society has yet reached a point where justice was truly achieved. The demand for justice is as old as humankind itself, and it has led to elaborate systems of law, that can be found in the oldest writings from the dawn of human civilization.
In reality, human beings are all very different from each other. We all have different lives, different circumstances and passions, and ultimately, everyone has to shoulder the burden of existence alone. One can argue that communities work best when there is a smooth division of labor, and not competitiveness, so why is there this strong and relentless demand for justice as equality throughout the course of history?
At first hand, equality seems to be an easy term. But the more you think about it, the more complicated it becomes. The concept of justice unfolds into a myriad of systems and theories about how it should be implemented. One idea - equality for all - leads to totally different approaches and definitions when it comes to the creation of rules by which we want to achieve this justice. In principle we all agree that a society should be just, but practically it leads to enormously different conceptions for social reality.
The term "equality" can mean many different things:
This concept is linked to the concept of non-discrimination. Laws must be equal for everybody and should not discriminate between people. Everyone should be protected and punished by the law in the same manner. The law is equal for all and all are equal for the law. The law cannot favor or harm a particular group or person. It can only favor or harm everybody in the same way. It has to be neutral with regard to persons. The legislator cannot make a law against or in favor of a particular person or group. A law should never apply to a limited group of people and should never treat people in different ways. It should by definition, be general. The same laws apply to everybody in the same way, including the legislator.
This neutrality is a requirement for both the content and the application of a law. A neutral law can still be applied in a selective way. Breaches of the law can be prosecuted or punished in an unequal and discriminatory way (take for example, the demography of death row in the US). That is also why the testimony of all persons is counted with the same weight. If that would not be the case, the equal application of the law would be impossible.
This is also linked to non-discrimination. Every human being has equal rights, wherever he or she lives, whether he or she believes in a God or not, is rich or poor, old or young, man or woman. Human rights are rights of all people at all times. If everybody has equal rights and if, as a consequence, nobody should be discriminated against in the use of his or her rights, then human rights are universal. It is unacceptable that some people enjoy more human rights than others, or enjoy some human rights more than other people enjoy them.
It is not equality that is at stake in economic rights. Of course, the purpose of economic rights is the equal distribution of the material goods necessary for survival in a decent way. And in order to achieve such a distribution, some things have to be taken away from the rich who no longer have the freedom to do what they like with everything they own.
However, the basic problem that economic rights try to address is not that there is unequal distribution of income or wealth. If some people do not have enough basic necessities, then a basic human right is violated. Income can be unequally distributed, but there is a threshold of basic needs: When people die of starvation, get sick for a lack of resources, or live miserable lives because they can't get an education, then economic rights have to invoked in order to address these issues. Human rights blend with social justice.
This is expressed in the democratic rule of “one man, one vote” designed to give all citizens equal influence. Political participation is an equal right. Everybody has the same right to participate and to rule, irrespective of class, status, race etc. Many social distinctions are politically irrelevant. Everybody has one vote and is politically equivalent. Of course, political equality can be undone by economic inequality and inequality of wealth. That is why a democracy should also protect a certain kind of material equality.
Equality of opportunity is often contrasted with equality of outcome or condition, i.e. the equality of income and wealth.
Beside these distinctions, others are also often used: equality of procedure, absolute vs relative equality, inequality for equality (affirmative action)…
We can derive all basic rights from two core values: freedom and equality. Freedom applies to the life of individuals, and equality is a value that applies to the organization of communities. The connection between these two basic values is interesting. They don’t exist separate from each other, they have a dialectical relation, which means that one cannot be thought without the other. We need them both in order to define justice for the human being.
Freedom and equality have an indirectly proportional relation to each other. The more freedom, the less equality, and vice versa. Equality gets lost in a society that frees individuals from most social constraints. And similarly, in a totally equal society, where there is no room for the individual to be different, the system becomes totalitarian, and people will revolt. Marx thought that humanity can overcome this dilemma, because we can free ourselves from the coercive equality that results from scarcity. In a society of abundance, in the final stage of a future communist society, there will be no conflict between freedom and equality any more, according to Marx. The society will be interested in creating maximum freedom for individuals, because these people will be fully emancipated, and they will focus on creating maximum benefit for society. This Utopian view does not take current human nature into account, where greed can exist even when there is no scarcity. One could also take a dystopian view: In a totally free society, the connection between humans gets lost, the bonds of solidarity dissolve, and even the unity of the human race as such can come into question. One can imagine that an extreme form of libertarianism can erode public institutions to the point of destruction. Over time, this can lead to a loss of trust in public institutions, a de-solidarization of society, and a deep skepticism or even cynicism towards the larger community. The result is a formation of elites that increasingly separate themselves from the mainstream.
For Marx, these extremes are not tenable. An increasingly unequal society will lead to revolutions, to revolts against the alienating power differentials inherent in elitist societies. The exercise of freedom may stretch the rubber band, but the value of equality will pull it together again. The result are antagonistic class struggles that drive history forward.
Traditionally, we consider freedom and equality to be core values. We can ask the philosophical question, what are values? Values manifest as demands towards the behavior of individuals. Morality demands that we don't lie, steal, or treat someone else unfairly. From this point of view, values are responsibilities for us in relation to others. But are they not also expressions of our own deepest desires? Freedom is a right for which many people are willing to fight to the death. We cannot abandon our own freedom without severe consequences for our well-being. And if we translate equality into justice, we know that many people also fight hard for the justice of others, even if it brings them disadvantages. It is a deep human desire to achieve justice for all.
Why is it that values are demands on us, but it can also be our deep desire to achieve them in our behavior towards others? This comes from the reversibility of positions between subject and other: My freedom is your obligation, and vice versa. If I demand expanded rights, somebody else has the duty to enable or enforce it. Equality means that our positions can be reversed: if you want my respect, you have to be willing to give it to me as well.
Equality can be understood as the smallest common denominator of goods (or rights) to which everyone is entitled. But is equality just a minimal condition? Does real equality not require that we fully recognize someone’s needs or accomplishments, even if we cannot fulfill or honor them? I feel understood only when I am fully recognized by others, and in this regard equality is also the expression of a desire.
Is freedom inherently bound to morality? What is the relationship? How can you be free and still bound by the law?
What is the relationship between freedom and rationality?
What can we say about the agent that is free?