Assignment First

商业文章代写:积极的自由和消极的自由

柏林是一个自由主义者,他在冷战时期开始写作,受到20世纪独裁统治者思想的推动。他提出了扭曲的自由观,这促进了自我控制的想法(柏林,2002)。除此之外,如果一个社会采用一个有机的概念,假设一个集体社会是一个个体,并且人们相信,即使受到外部因素的影响,这个个体也会以理性的方式行事,那么这个个体就会控制自己的权力。

正如柏林所说,自由不仅仅被定义为两种不同的类型:积极的自由和消极的自由;相反,他们可以被视为不和谐地走在一起,是一个单一的政治人格的想法。积极自由与消极自由的区别与自由意志主义和社会主义政治思想家有很大关系。这些术语在评价国家的作用和它们所采取的可允许的行动方面发挥着重要作用。为了简单起见,如果我们定义消极自由这个词,它可能意味着没有外部控制或限制,而另一方面,积极自由可能意味着没有内部限制和权力。

支持个人自由的政治自由主义者通常声称,政府最终将对个人施加强有力的控制,或试图限制政府的活动。然而,批评家们会通过对自由主义者给出的消极自由的定义进行争论。批评家认为,个人自由或社会集体自由都需要国家干预。

在1958年出版的著名著作《自由的两个概念》中,以赛亚·伯林清楚地说明了为什么要用消极和积极来定义自由。首先,消极自由可能仅仅意味着缺乏外部控制或外部力量造成的障碍。第二,积极的自由可能意味着内部没有限制和权力。这也意味着存在自决(柏林,1969)。也可以说,自决或自我掌握的概念需要对权力的控制。虽然这是两个不同的术语,但唯一的区别在于社会和政治哲学家使用它们的风格和方式。

柏林和许多其他自由主义者认为,积极的自由会带来极权主义的风险(柏林,1978)。例如,考虑到被压迫的永久少数群体的命运,由于这一少数群体的成员积极参与国家的民主进程,他们可以说具有在社会中行使自己事务的自制力和权力。然而,这里要注意的一件重要的事情是,他们属于被压迫的那一类人,这肯定使他们依赖,而且肯定不是自由的。因此,可以说,即使是大多数群体也可以以自由的名义受到压迫。这表明民主社会不一定是自给自足和自我控制的。

商业文章代写:积极的自由和消极的自由

Berlin, being a liberalist, who started writing during the period of cold war, was propelled by the idea of authoritarian rulers of 20th century. He presented the distorted view of liberty which promotes the idea of self-mastery (Berlin, 2002). In addition to this, if a society adopts an organic concept wherein a collective society is hypothetically considered an individual and it is believed that the individual will act in a rational way even when exposed to external factors, the individual will be in control of its own power.
As stated by Berlin, liberty is not merely defined as two different kinds: Positive liberty and negative liberty; rather they can be seen as not going together harmoniously, and are ideas of a single political personality. The distinction between positive liberty and negative liberty has a lot to do with Libertarian and Socialist political thinkers. These terms play a significant role in evaluating the role of the state and permissible actions taken by them. For the sake of simplicity, if we define the term negative liberty, it could mean absence of external control or limits, while on the other hand, positive liberty could mean the absence of limits and power internally.
Political liberals, who are in favour of individual liberty, generally claim that one would eventually place strong control or try to limit the activities undertaken by the state. Whereas, the critics would argue by contesting the definition of negative liberty given by the liberals. As per the critics, liberty of an individual or the collective liberty of the society can require the state to intervene.
In the famous piece of writing, ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin has clearly stated the reason for using the label of negative and positive to define liberty. Firstly, negative liberty could mean mere absence of external control or barriers created by external forces. Secondly, positive liberty could mean the absence of limits and power internally. It would also mean the presence self-determination (Berlin, 1969). It can also be said that the concept of self-determination or self-mastery entails a presence of control of power. Although, these are two different terms, the only difference lies in the style and the way they are used by social and political philosophers.
It is argued by Berlin and many other liberals that with positive liberty, there comes a risk of totalitarianism (Berlin, 1978). Consider the doom of an oppressed and permanent minority for instance, since the members of this minority take active participation in the democratic process of the state, they might be said to have self-control and power to exercise their own affairs in the society. However, an important thing to note here is that, they belong to the category of the oppressed which surely makes them dependent and certainly not free. Thus, it can be said that even a majority group can be oppressed in the name of liberty. This suggests that a democratic society is not necessarily self-sufficient and self-controlled.