An analysis of King and Positive and Negative Liberty - Kat

By

 MLK writes that denying freedom is a denial of life while outlining his second ethical demand for integration. After outlining what freedom is, King ultimately asserts that the evilness of segregation eliminates man’s ability to deliberate, decide, and respond (his qualifications for freedom). But what does King’s analysis surmount to considering the concept of negative and positive liberties?


I believe that one can utilize King’s work alongside the political theory of liberty to distinguish between positive and negative liberty and King’s argument on integration and desegregation. 


Negative liberty, from my understanding, is freedom from interference. A person is free under a negative definition of liberty when they are free from interference in their religious practices or free from persecution because of their race or gender; they can do what they want without any obstacles. Meanwhile, positive liberties are the freedoms to act however they choose. So, positive freedom dictates that a person is free to pursue any opportunity they desire (essentially self-determination). 


In the context of King’s ethical demands, black people are free under negative liberty when no one actively stops them from doing what they want. But would King believe that mere freedom considering negative liberties is enough? Well, King stipulates that he is not referring to freedom of will in his argument. Freedom of will, which he notes turns men from people to objects, only provides freedom to one faculty, not the whole person; it is not true freedom. With negative liberty, there still exist restraints on men’s freedom, since negative liberty still may restrain men from fulfilling their potential. Consider the emancipation proclamation. After enslaved people were legally freed in America during and after the Civil War, they qualified for freedom, possessing negative liberty. But, they were not truly free to act however they wished. They still lacked property or money (among other things). They were free but could not act on their freedom (on their negative liberty). As such, King’s demand for freedom of the whole man, not just his will, is not covered by freedom considering negative liberties. 


However, freedom considering positive liberties fit into King’s view of freedom as the essence of man. King’s stipulation for total freedom was, acknowledging the predestine structure which naturally restricts people, that men can weigh alternatives, make a decision, and respond to the decision (he must respond alone, for the action was dictated by the man’s total and central being). As such, positive liberty which accounts for such self-determination moreso fits into King’s considerations for true freedom and discourse on freedom as an ethical demand for integration


After analyzing the difference between positive and negative liberties (and how King's freedom aligns with positive liberty), one can connect King’s freedom (and its positive and negative counterparts) with his larger argument for integration rather than mere desegregation. While desegregation removes barriers to freedom, it does not prohibit man's total capacity from being blocked. Considering negative liberties, desegregationary measures are sufficient to guarantee freedom. Although, King would argue that negative liberty for black people is insufficient. Meanwhile, positive liberty would demand integration and allow for solidarity among men (nearly a contractual foundation to freedom). In line with King’s analysis, the total freedom of being which accompanies positive liberty encompasses King’s concept of freedom and integration (unchained spirit and mind and the highest degree of life-quality freedom). 


Overall, King argues that individuals can do well in a desegregated society but can only know and utilize their full capacity in an integrated society. His analysis matches the discourse comparing positive and negative liberties. As such, one can determine that King could argue for positive liberty over negative, men can only be free when they receive the ability to fulfill their total capacity, just as he argues that men need integration, not only desegregation.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more