In Chapter 32, Rawls narrows in on “The Concept of
Liberty.” He explains, “any liberty can
be explained by a reference to three items: the agents who are free, the
restrictions or limitations which they are free from, and what it is that they
are free to do or not do” (177). He then
delves deeper into his explanation of liberty by citing forms of the general
description of liberty, “this or that person (or persons) is free (or not free)
from this or that constraint (or set of constraints) to do (or not to do) so
and so” (177). He continues,
“Associations as well as natural persons may be free or not free, and
constraints may range from duties and prohibitions defined by law to the
coercive influences arising from public opinion and social pressure” (177). This passage evoked many of the discussion
that Bria and I had in our tutorial on Monday.
In a lot of ways, Rawls is unclear about how he perceives human
autonomy. Throughout his discussions,
Rawls makes a tremendous plea for liberty, yet he also seems to argue that our
lives are, in many ways, constrained by outside factors. Do we really have the choice in life or are
all of our decisions dictated by outside factors that compel us to do
something? Are the constraints that “may
range from duties and prohibitions defined by the law to the coercive
influences arising from public opinion and social pressure” great enough that
they severely impair our ability to be free at all? Rawls seems to express great tension with the
idea of liberty, and he even raises question about whether any of us are
“agents who are free.” Are our whole lives controlled by arbitrary factors
dictated by the natural and social lotteries or are there times when we are
free agents? If we are rarely free
agents but rather are constrained by natural, legal, and social factors, do we
really have any liberty at all?
Is political freedom/liberty the same freedom as that involved in freedom of the will? If not, what is the relationship between the two? Rawls is talking about the former; you are introducing questions about the latter, and the relationship between the two.
ReplyDeleteRawls definitely says that our lives are contained by morally arbitrary factors such as the social lottery and the natural lottery, however I feel that he is trying to minimize the impacts of these factors through his conception of justice, so that our social circumstances and natural talents do not lend us such a great advantage over those who lack the same privileges.
ReplyDelete