Freedom and justice

Why does the chapter start by listing different kinds of constraints on our freedom?

Because defining freedom as the absence of constraints is too vague, so political theorists examine what actually counts as a constraint in order to clarify what it means to be free

how can non-democratic government be a constraint on freedom?

Living in a non‑democratic system can restrict freedom because people lack control over who rules them and how decisions are made

why does the text say there is no necessary relationship between democracy and freedom?

A benign dictatorship might grant extensive personal freedom, while a democracy can still interfere heavily in people's lives, so "who governs me?" is different from "how far does government interfere with me?"

what is the most obvious way in which our freedom can be constrained?

When we are physically coerced by others, such as through imprisonment or slavery, preventing us from doing what we want to do

why does the chapter suggest that legal punishment can resemble a physical constraint?

Because very severe penalties, like long prison sentences or the death penalty, make disobedience so costly that, for practical purposes, people are not genuinely free to choose it

how does physical incapacity limit freedom?

A person is unfree when a physical impairment—such as inability to walk—prevents them from doing something that others can do, so their options are objectively reduced

when are physical incapacities most clearly understood as constraints on freedom?

When the situation is unalterable or beyond human control, because in those cases the person simply cannot perform certain actions that are otherwise possible

According to MacCallum, what do all genuine statements about freedom have in common?

They all contain 3 elements: an agent (X), a constraint (Y), and an objective or action (Z)- "X is free from Y to do or be Z"

If everyone uses MacCallum's X-Y-Z schema, why do political theorists still disagree about freedom?

They disagree over what should count as the agent, the relevant constraints, and the objectives, even though they share the same formal structure

How do theorists focused on physical coercion differ from those who stress rationality and morality within MacCalum's framework?

The first group treats Y as external, physical constraints and Z as outward actions, while the second treats Y as internal irrationality or immorality and Z as states of mind or a rational/moral self.

Why does the text say MacCallum's approach does not fully solve debates about liberty?

Because it does not eliminate disagreements about what counts as X, Y, or Z; it only relocates the conceptual disputes rather than resolving them.

What compromise position does MacCallum's view suggest about the nature of freedom?

That there is a single concept of freedom (the X-Y-Z structure), but there are many different conceptions of that concept, depending on how each element is specified

What are the 2 key questions that distinguish negative from positive freedom in Berlin's account?

Negative freedom asks "Within what area can a person act without interference by others?", while positive freedom asks "Who or what is the source of control that can determine what the person does or is?

How does Berlin summarise the difference between negative and positive liberty?

Negative liberty focuses on the area of control – how much room a person has to act without interference – whereas positive liberty stresses the source of control, especially whether individuals are self‑governing

Why is self-government central for advocates of positive freedom?

Because they see genuine freedom as people being able to direct their own lives, not just being left alone; control must come from the individual or their rational will

How is justifying freedom different from defining it?

Defining freedom is about what freedom is, while justifying freedom is about why it should have a special or presumptive value over other goals like equality

What do some theorists mean by a "presumption in favour of freedom"?

They argue the burden of proof lies on those who want to restrict freedom; limitations need special justification because freedom is treated as the default.

How does Dworkin link freedom to equality of concern and respect?

He argues that certain "strong" liberties, needed to ensure equal concern and respect for persons, should be inviolable, though critics say deciding which liberties count as strong is subjective

How does cultural pluralism complicate the claim that some liberties must be inviolable?

n diverse societies, different groups hold conflicting norms of behaviour, making it hard to specify a single set of liberties that everyone must accept without being accused of cultural imperialism.

On what general grounds does Mill defend freedom?

He defends it in utilitarian terms, claiming that maximizing freedom of thought and action tends to promote happiness, knowledge and self‑development

What is mill's harm principle regarding state intervention?

The state and public opinion should only restrict actions that harm others (other‑regarding actions); self‑regarding actions that do not cause physical or financial harm to others should not be interfered with

Why does Mill oppose censorship even of false or offensive opinions?

He believes exposure to objections strengthens true beliefs and that a diversity of opinions is essential for rational debate and social progress.

What is one major criticism of Mill's optimism about freedom of expression?

Critics argue that free discussion does not always lead to truth or social progress and that, in some cases, withholding information (e.g. about a grave diagnosis) might better promote an individual's well‑being

Why do some critics say Mill's self/other-regarding distinction is untenable?

They claim almost all actions have effects on others, so what seems private or self‑regarding (such as drug use or sexual behaviour) can still have wider social consequences

How does Lord Devlin's view of private immorality differ from Mill's?

Devlin argues there is no such thing as purely private immorality because private conduct affects shared moral values and social cohesion, so the law may legitimately prohibit it

How does the text apply Mill's ideas to offensive speech like racist writing or blasphemous cartoons?

It notes that such speech might not cause direct physical or financial harm but can still be deeply offensive; Mill would generally protect it, yet racist incitement counts as other‑regarding because it encourages harm to others and can be banned

Why is Mill generally opposed to paternalistic restrictions on self‑regarding actions?

He thinks adults are usually the best judges of their own good and that allowing people to choose freely is character‑forming and conducive to happiness

What is the paternalist challenge to Mill's view?

Paternalists argue that the state may sometimes be justified in restricting self‑regarding actions to prevent serious self‑harm and thereby increase overall happiness (e.g. in the smoking case).

How is the smoking ban in pubs/clubs used to illustrate Mill's harm principle?

The ban is justified because passive smoking harms non‑smokers; smoking in private, where no one else is harmed, would count as self‑regarding and should not be banned on Mill's view.

What is one criticism that says Mill's harm principle does not go far enough in the smoking case?

t argues that even private smoking can harm others indirectly, for example through emotional and financial burdens on family or costs to the health service.

What is the second main criticism of Mill in the smoking case study?

It claims there can be good reasons for the state to intervene to stop people harming themselves, so freedom may legitimately be restricted for an individual's own long‑term health and happiness.

How do Marxist theorists criticise the liberal conception of freedom?

They argue that capitalist property rights create severe restrictions on the freedom of those without property, since unequal ownership gives some people power to deprive others of essential resources.

According to the Marxist account mentioned, when can freedom for the proletariat be enhanced?

Only when property is collectively owned, because then the use of resources is no longer controlled by a small class and more people can actually exercise meaningful freedom

in modern politics, what does it mean to say justice is a "distributional" concept?

It means justice is mainly about how scarce social resources such as wealth, income and opportunities ought to be distributed among people

How does justice differ romantically charity?

Charity is morally good but optional, whereas justice concerns what people are due or entitled to, creating obligations rather than mere generosity.

What is the difference between procedural justice and social (distributive) justice?

Procedural justice focuses on fairness of rules and processes regardless of outcomes, while social justice focuses on the fairness of the actual distribution of outcomes.

In what sense must all theories of justice involve equality?

They require equal and consistent treatment before the law—accepting that equals ought to be treated equally—even if they later justify unequal distributions on other grounds.

What does a needs‑based theory of justice say about distributing resources?

It holds that resources should be allocated according to people's needs, an idea especially associated with socialism and the slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

How is the welfare state in liberal democracies linked to the principle of need?

It reflects a recognition that meeting citizens' basic needs is a requirement of justice, even if other criteria such as desert are also used once those needs are met.

What does a meritocratic theory of justice advocate?

It favours distributing resources to individuals who display talent, hard work or other forms of merit, so that those who contribute more receive more.

Why does a meritocratic view link justice to equal opportunity?

Rewarding talent or effort is only fair if everyone has a roughly equal starting point, so the view implies strong educational and welfare policies to create a level playing field.

What is one problem with basing justice purely on need?

It is not always clear what counts as a genuine need, and focusing only on needs can ignore the importance of incentives and individual desert.

Why would a desert‑based distribution likely require significant state action?

Because ensuring real equality of opportunity so that rewards truly track talent and effort would demand extensive state intervention to remove structural disadvantages.

What is the "original position" and "veil of ignorance" in Rawls's method?

The original position is a hypothetical choice situation where individuals, behind a veil of ignorance about their future social position, choose principles of justice for society; ignorance of their own status is meant to ensure impartiality and unanimous agreement.

What two main principles of justice does Rawls say parties in the original position would choose?

(1) Each person has an equal right to the most extensive system of basic liberties compatible with similar liberty for all; (2) social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged and attach to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity

What is Rawls's "maximin" strategy, and why do some critics doubt people would choose it

Maximin means maximizing the position of the worst‑off, but critics argue individuals might instead choose a less risk‑averse "middle way" allowing more inequality so long as there is decent protection for those at the bottom.

How is Rawls's use of the original position and reflective equilibrium criticised?

Some say he designs the method to yield the principles he already favours, since the outcome is checked against existing moral intuitions; the procedure may therefore reflect prior liberal conventions rather than a neutral contract.

In general terms, how is Rawls criticised from the left and from the right?

From the left, his difference principle is seen as not egalitarian enough and too protective of liberty; from the right, thinkers like Nozick argue that redistributive principles violate individual property rights and go too far.

How does Nozick's entitlement theory challenge Rawls's end‑state view of justice?

Nozick claims justice concerns whether holdings were acquired and transferred fairly, not whether the resulting distribution meets a pattern like need; he regards taxation for redistribution as unjust forced labour, though he adds provisos that original acquisition must be fair and not undermine others' basic well‑being.

According to cosmopolitan theories of justice, to whom do we owe duties of justice?

To all human beings as members of a single global community, not only to compatriots within our own state's borders.

How do cosmopolitan theorists link justice to global inequality and climate change?

They argue rich industrialised states owe duties to reduce emissions and to assist poorer states that are less able to cope, because the former have contributed most to the harms.

What is a common criticism made of cosmopolitan theories of justice?

Critics say their demanding principles—such as strong duties to the global poor or future generations—are unrealistic "ideal theory" and difficult to implement politically.

How do communitarian theories of justice differ from liberal and cosmopolitan ones?

Communitarians reject universal principles and argue that standards of justice should reflect the particular histories, cultures and shared values of specific political communities.

Why do communitarians criticise cosmopolitan ideas of global citizenship?

They see them as naïve about how people's loyalties are rooted in local communities and as objectionable attempts to impose one liberal conception of justice on other cultures.

What assumption about justice do green theories challenge?

They dispute the view that justice only concerns currently living humans, extending justice claims to future generations and, for some theorists, to non‑human animals, ecosystems or biodiversity.

What main challenge does the conclusion say theorists of freedom and justice now face?

They must grapple with the impact of globalisation and cultural diversity on what count as legitimate restrictions on freedom and fair principles of justice, especially in light of stark global inequalities.

Besides non‑democratic government, what two further external constraints on freedom do the slides highlight?

Physical coercion and economic impediments, since people must have the real power and resources to exercise liberty.

What "internal" constraints on freedom are mentioned in the slides?

Limits arising from rationality and morality, and psychological influences beyond our control.

Why does Berlin regard positive freedom as potentially illiberal according to the slides?

Because rulers can claim they know people's "true" interests and justify forcing them "to be free", overriding their expressed wishes.

How do the slides make the needs‑based theory of justice more precise than the textbook?

They describe it as tied to equality of outcome, aiming at an equal share of resources regardless of individuals' different inputs

What two ideas do the slides add to the merit/desert theory of justice?

They link it to luck egalitarianism, which compensates people for bad brute luck (for example via free early‑years education), and explicitly tie it to equal opportunity that considers both ability and effort.

Which priority relations among Rawls's principles are emphasised in the slides?

The liberty principle has priority over all distributive principles, and within the second principle fair equality of opportunity has priority over the difference principle.

How do the slides connect Marx to freedom as self‑development?

They stress that unequal property ownership restricts the life possibilities of non‑owners, so only collective ownership can expand the proletariat's real freedom to develop their capacities