This document discusses Isaiah Berlin's concepts of negative and positive liberty as outlined in his essay "Two Concepts of Liberty". It summarizes Berlin's key distinctions between negative and positive liberty, with negative liberty referring to freedom from interference and positive liberty referring to freedom to act or be something. The document then discusses how Philip Pettit analyzes Berlin's concepts of liberty through a neo-republican lens, agreeing with the importance of freedom from domination but arguing that some interference can be justified if it prevents arbitrary power and promotes citizens' shared interests and diverse ways of life.

1. Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Subject
DD Month YYYY
Isaiah Berlins Concept of Liberty.
contacts:dorineadalyn@gmail.com
Isaiah Berlin was a philosopher, political theorist, historian of idealist and educator. He
opposed political extremist and intellectual fanaticism. The essay, Concept of Liberty led to the
revival of interest of political theory and it is one of the most discussed text in the field. In the
essay, he make a distinctions between positive and negative liberties which sets ground for the
discussion of political freedom. This essay aims at exploring Berlin’s concept of freedom, and
apply those concepts to the text.
Negative freedom centers on Freedom from interference and is usually put forward in
reaction to “What is the area within which the subject – a person or group of persons – is or
should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?
(Berlin 155). According to Berlin, negative liberty is the absence of interferences or coercion
with agent’s possible private actions by an exterior social body. For Berlin, negative liberty
presents a different or contemporary incarnation of the concepts of liberty that requires a careful
examination. Berlin argued that the concept of negative liberty constitute an alternative concocts
of positive liberty and one which is often nearer to the intrusive contemporary usage of the word.

2. Surname 2
Berlin regard negative liberty as one of the distinguishing concepts of contemporary liberalism
and observed that “The fathers of liberalism--Mill and Constant--want more than this minimum:
they demand a maximum degree of non-interference compatible with the minimum demands of
social life. It seems unlikely that this extreme demand for liberty has ever been made by any but
a small minority of highly civilized and self-conscious human beings”.
Positive freedom according to Berlin is freedom to do something rather than inferences.
Berlin notes that both positive and negative liberty are not just descriptions the concept of
liberty, to a great extent, they are incompatible or rival interoperation of a political ideal.
According to Berlin, positive liberty can carry with it the dangers of authoritarianism. Only
restriction caused by others impacts individual freedom. Berlin explains that positive liberty
focuses on the ways desires are created due to people’s rational reflection on the alternative
available or due to manipulation, pressure or ignorance. However, positive liberty does not
regard individual desires. According to Berlin, positive liberty has often proven susceptible to
the rhetorical abuse. It has either patermaitically re-drawn from conflated with concepts of
native liberty and therefore obscure the underlying value conflicts.
Modern political thinkers are often conflated with positive liberty with a rational actions
because of the influence of the people like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Aristotle, Plato, W. F. Hegel
and Immanuel Kant. Their thinking is based on rational knowledge that certain group or
individuals have access to. Their thinking was open to abuse due to encroachment by negative
liberty. The positive liberty defend social engendering, nationalism, paternalism, collective
rational control f human destiny. Following the influence of elite of positive liberty demands for
freedom could paradoxically become a form of collective control of discipline and thus, positive
liberty does not involve the claim that there is only one right or answer in regard to how people

3. Surname 3
should live and thus positive liberty can be promoted in positive sense without encroaching
individual sphere of native liberty. Berlins exclaim that the gap between negative and positive
freedom and dangers of abuse, are further increasing if people identify with the “higher” or
“real” self.
The concept of liberty can be analyzed in the lens of neo-republicanism written by Philip
Pettit. According to neo-republican, the concept of liberty allows for arbitrary power to emerge
and that has a negative association between liberty and intervention. Freedom of choice as a
basis of neo-republicanism perspective sets the reasons why Berlin’s concepts of liberty gave
precedence to the negative liberty. This essay will analyze Isaiah Berlins Concept of Liberty and
Philip Pettit Republicanism.
Neo-republicanism distances itself from Marxist thinking and neo-liberalism that was
dormant in the western nation. To Pettit, public participation is not a form of liberty, however
engagement in the public domain is significant since it is a proper dimension of liberty because it
foster liberty as a freedom from domination. (Pettit, 9). Neo-republicanism argues that there are
importance of power separation as a barrier to tyranny by the majority thus repudiating populist
sympathy for an ideal state and people as their incontestable master (Pettit 6). Based on Berlins
concept of liberty, positive liberty involves the notion that people are taking action for their own
reasons without being influenced by any external forces (Berlin 143). While in negative liberty,
citizens are free of any interference from other people. This notion is contradicted by Pettit
concept of liberty. Based on neo-republican, liberty grows out of situations where citizens are not
subjected to interference and are free to hold on to their choices without interference. (Pettit 51).
The intervention may only be needed if liberty undermines the citizen’s free will or provide
safety. Berlin explains that domination can happen without the need for intervention thus forcing

4. Surname 4
the people to restricting their choices to satisfy the dominator who has power of enforcing certain
behavior without weighing the interest of the people. The notion of oppression based on Berlin’s
assertion that the oppressed understanding ttheir wishes are frustrated by actions that disregard
their ability to choose freedom. This is an indication that the notion of oppression given by
Berlin is similar to that the Neo-republican perspective of arbitrariness. Pettit arbitrary act of
domination demands that an agent have the ability to interfere with someone’s without regarding
their interests and perspective (Pettit 5).
Berlin’s concepts of freedom are visited in the Liberty of Ancient of Ancient Compared
with that of Modern’s, a text written by Benjamin’s Constant (1816). According to Constant, the
liberty of the contemporary does not rely on some hypothetical states of nature but on history.
This is the reason institution were supplanted by modern states as sets the ground for principles.
Thus there was an endeavors to impose institutions that does not regard individual’s freedom.
Such perspective according to Benjamin rest on political actors but not on history hence resulting
in a mismatch in the institutions. Based on Pettit’s texts, doctrines history is significant as it
legitimate authoritative principles which undermines the liberty of the moderns to interfere with
citizens’ liberty.
Pettit’s Neo-republican agree with Berlins concepts of liberty that negative liberty affects
citizens’ ability to be secure and independent to pursue whatever means or things they want.
However, the inference which is imbedded by the law, is for the common good. The common
good is legitimated through intervention which is compatible with liberty and ensure that diverse
ways of life can be expressed without suffering at the end. However, for Neo-republicans,
interference from institution can only be permitted if it is for the interest of the citizens and can

5. Surname 5
only do that based on the criteria that are shared by the majority. Hence, liberty is promoted by a
democratic states for citizens but not as a means of ending them.
Works Cited
Berlin, Isaiah. Concepts of Freedom. (1969), pp. 121–2; see, p. 155.
PETTIT, Philip. Republicanism. Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2002). P.155.