What is the Difference Between Natural Liberty and Moral Liberty?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction to Concepts of Liberty: Natural and Moral

Liberty is a multi-faceted concept, which has many definitions offered by lots of philosophers, each of them adopting a unique approach and thus providing a peculiar interpretation of liberty. The Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who left a significant legacy, influencing the minds of future generations and providing his own answers to the enmeshed questions of all times, also discussed the types of liberties in his treatises, describing natural liberty and moral liberty.

In his “Discourse on Inequality” Jean-Jacques Rousseau depicted the transition from state of nature to the civil state. And although one can doubt the existence of a pure state of nature, its description helps to analyse liberty and inequality from a distanced perspective, tracking the development of civil society and studying its underlying principles. In the state of nature there is no such thing as ownership or supreme power, people are not interdependent, they are guided by their natural needs and possess all the instincts, necessary for leading their lives. Rousseau ascribes to men the ability to be compassionate, unlike Hobbes, whose description of the state of nature is very different from the one, offered by Rousseau. He disagrees on the supposition that men are naturally evil or cruel and claims that compassion prevents people from harming each other. They led “free, healthy, honest and happy lives ”, but everything changed the moment people stopped confining themselves to activities they could undertake themselves. Equality disappeared, when people were no longer able to manage on their own, without the help of others. Liberty and equality are intertwined and both highly dependent on property. Mutual needs united people, but civil society came into existence, when the land was enclosed by an individual. He called it his own thus contributing to the eventual demise of the natural state. With a view to securing the property these people came up with idea of supreme power, thus legalizing their actions and getting rid of the risk of losing anything. So these laws “bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality ”.

Natural Liberty: Definition and Characteristics

In this case people relinquish their natural liberty by social contract, without getting anything in return. And after that surprisingly enough the need for equality increased exponentially. Having discussed all the obstacles, problems and challenges of this state, Jean-Jacques Rousseau introduced the ways of facing them. All people are different and yet they have to reach a consensus somehow. In his book “The Social Contract” Rousseau described the prerequisites of a beneficial transfer from one state to another. Moral liberty and the social contract compensate the loss of natural liberty. The transition from natural liberty to moral is accompanied by the transition from absolute freedom to a more complete and fundamental one, from a vague concept of belongings to property and ownership, from individual will to general will, all of which are beneficial to men, that is why they are willing to lose natural liberty.

One of the most vital differences between natural liberty and moral liberty lies in their interpretation of the concept of freedom. Natural liberty according to Rousseau is “limited only by the individual’s powers” and he gives it away the moment he accepts the social contract. A man then acquires moral liberty, “which alone makes him truly master of himself ”. So in the first case freedom spreads to the extent of person’s physical abilities, while moral liberty limits freedom through laws. It is important to mention that by saying freedom, one understands the absolute freedom of doing whatever one wants, which is not possible in both states.

Nature gives people physical strength to stand to the challenges of wildlife. In its nascent stage of development human beings lived in relative isolation doing everything their own way. They were able to overcome the impediments without the help of someone else. Afterwards when the notion of property appeared in their life, people deeply felt their physical inequality. Although people theoretically had freedom, they could not enjoy it. They were free to eat the animals in the forest, but sometimes they could not catch them. They were free to lay claim on anything, but that does not mean that they were able to take it. So natural liberty bestows upon people freedom of actions, but does not grant them with sufficient physical strength to carry them out, moreover forcing them to compete with one another.

Natural liberty evaporates in the civil state, as a person no longer has the right to be the master of his own fate and belongings, because now he is dependent on the rules of the society. But what happens to freedom? Can people be considered to be free if they have to follow rules? Do those rules restrict freedom? People do not sacrifice their freedom for their lives in society. It is preserved in a slightly modified form. This transformation is more than beneficial otherwise people would not adopt a new lifestyle. The essential prerequisite of moral liberty is obedience to the law. The rights of all individuals are restricted in the same way. This does not erase the physical differences between people, but it does make them inessential. The unimportance of differences and the universal obedience to laws create a new form of freedom. Although now people do not enjoy the freedom of the abovementioned type, they can do more, because the unequal natural conditions have been equalized by the laws of society.

So, absolute liberty cannot exist in any form of human life, as there are always some limitations, either natural or conventional. Moral liberty has been chosen by men over natural liberty, as the freedom people gain is more than the one they actually had before.

Losing the “unrestricted right to anything he wants and can get” an individual acquires “the ownership of everything that he possesses ”. Although losing his natural liberty and the right to anything he desires, including the property of other people, a person gains a far more complete liberty, which is expressed through peace, security and lack of constant fear of losing everything. It sounds paradoxical, but liberty is achieved through obedience. Security and equality are at the heart of moral liberty, making it more valuable than inequity of natural state. Rousseau distinguished two types of inequality: natural or physical and moral or political.

Physical inequality is established by nature, it does not depend on people. The one who is physically stronger, faster, that is possesses the skills to hunt and survive in wildlife, has a significant advantage over others. Due to his power he can take something from those, who are weaker and who are not able to fight back and win. And yet security and ownership are temporary, as someone else can come any minute and take everything away, devaluing all the preceding efforts and battles. Endless struggle, constant fear of losing everything and the permanent necessity of asserting one’s rights to the land and other possessions by fighting are components of what we call natural liberty. As we can see, the other side of the coin is not that good and bright. Natural liberty does not fall within the framework of the concepts of liberty or justice, as nowadays people assign a different meaning to these words. Natural liberty is not limited by a group of people. However good and advantageous the rights may be, one is willing to relinquish them the moment he realises, that his enemy enjoys the same right of lawlessness. That is why obedience is more precious than this kind of liberty.

Transition from Natural to Moral Liberty

Political inequality exists, as there are poor and rich people, those, who are powerful and those, who are not. One may consider that there is no such thing as justice and security in view of the fact the power of ruling over people goes from nature to rich people, who pursue only the aim of reinforcing their power. This does not correspond to the definition of moral liberty, because liberty is “obedience to a law that we prescribe to ourselves ”. People have the moral right to go against the existing system, if it encroaches on the liberty of the members of a society.

So, all people in society undertake the obligations under the same conditions and all of them have the same rights. This type of equality is considered to be fair, as it gives equal rights, regardless of physical power, bestowed upon people by nature. Conviction of everybody’s obligatory obedience is a step towards man’s confidence in his future. This guarantees development, because when the never-ending struggle for property remains in the past, people finally get around to expanding and multiplying their property and to contributing to its prosperity. So advantages of the social contract preponderate over the losses, and people are ready to obey in order to be free.

Natural instincts are replaced with sense of justice and moral aspects accompany people’s actions due to the social contract that is why people are inclined to lose natural liberty with a view to having property that others cannot take away by force.

Transition from natural liberty to moral liberty is accompanied by transition from individual will to general will. General will refers to all the members of society. Putting aside his own desires, an individual starts taking into account the will of others, realizing that his own well-being depends on that. And after sorting out their priorities people see that this transition is beneficial for everybody. One can call this into question, claiming that general will is connected with civil liberty, but its principles affect moral liberty as well.

Natural liberty does not presuppose the existence of general will, as it does not correspond to its nature. Every man is guided by his own wishes, without paying attention to the desires of other people. Social contract, on the other hand, ties up individuals the moment there are born to the society. An infant does not sign anything, he is not a party to that treaty, he is not acquainted with the subject matter and yet he is forced to follow the rules. Why should any person obey, if he has not given consent to those rules? Why should not he act in accordance with his own wishes? Why, for example, should he follow traffic rules? The list of these questions can be endless, but there is only one and distinct answer to all of them. Because all the decisions have been made in his favour and that is why he should abide all these laws, even the ones that punish him in case he breaks them. When someone breaks a law, the liberty of other people is under threat of being violated. “The constant will of all the members of the state is the general will; by virtue of it they are citizens and free ”. So, according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, if the agreement is legitimate, equitable, useful and stable, the person does not obey a particular person or group of people, he obeys his own will. And he silently follows the rules of the social contract, because the clauses of the social contract are aimed at providing his security and well-being.

Moral Liberty: Obedience to Law and Self-Mastery

Moral liberty can be reached through obedience and by understanding the importance of punishments and limitations, as well as by considering “the body of the nation ” to be one whole rather than an amalgamation of individuals. From this point of view these two perspectives can somehow resemble holism and individualism. Putting major emphasis on the importance of the whole, one can see that together people are stronger. As it has already been mentioned, the principles of freedom are built on the obedience to the rules that people prescribe to themselves. But what if those rules start violating people’s rights? What if a person stops prescribing them to himself? What happens to his moral liberty? If the laws no longer serve their ultimate goal, a person or a group of people can change them. Changing the clauses of the social contract is possible, they are subject to amendment. The system would not work the other way around. There are different types of government and no one can say which one is better. The choice of the most suitable government for the given country depends on its inhabitants, on the climate, on the historical circumstances etc. We can conclude that the type of government can change, adjusting to the changeable circumstances.

Comparative Analysis of Natural and Moral Liberties

Moral liberty provides the ground for general will, which as we can see does not presuppose encroachment by others. So, after weighing the pros and cons one can see that individual will is not desirable for any member, whoever he might be, as it results in constant struggle and injustice.

So in his book “The Social Contract” Jean-Jacques Rousseau described natural and moral liberties, their differences and the process of transition from one to another, accompanied by losses that people are ready to accept and profits that are far more beneficial for individuals. Natural liberty makes a person free to do whatever he wants, to go wherever he wants and to take whatever he desires. But the fact that this seemingly total freedom is confined to one’s physical strength, which is unfairly bestowed upon people by nature, devalues that freedom, as it presupposes constant struggle, fear and injustice. Unequal physical strength does not allow one to have property, as it can be taken away any minute by someone else. There is no such thing as ownership and there are no laws, so there are no punishments. Individual’s concerns are confined to his main necessities and everybody lives on his own.

Moral liberty, on the other hand, limits freedom in its abovementioned meaning and adopts a different approach to it. On balance, this makes people more free than before, as theoretically unlimited freedom is replaced with a greater one in reality. This creates equality, regardless of physical differences. People are to be independent from one another, and yet all dependent on the law, which makes them equal. New system, equality, laws and rights beget confidence and a desire to multiply what one already has. Prosperity and development come into existence, as punishments and laws affect everybody and create relative security, stability and certainty for people. However, now one is forced to sacrifice his individual will to some extent and think about general will. Besides people born to a society with already firmly established laws cannot possibly be considered to be parties to that treaty, as they did not give their consent to them. But they are forced to follow all these rules, and this may seem unfair. However after realizing that all the laws seemingly limiting the freedom and violating people’s rights in reality serve the goal of making their lives safe and just, individuals start following these rules. The paradox of moral liberty is in fact the interconnection of freedom and obedience.

Conclusion: The Evolution of Liberty in Human Society

Social contract is the combination of obligatory concessions that make life of society possible, as liberty is not lawlessness and impunity, which people call the right to do everything. Liberty is reached through codes of laws, which punish offenders and create conditions for safe and peaceful life, as long as the laws contribute to the preservation of moral liberty.

Click Here To Order Now!

What is the Difference Between Natural Liberty and Moral Liberty?

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)