The Negative Freedom and Politics of Modus Vivendi
Keywords:moral autonomy, negative freedom, normative political theory, politics of modus vivendi
Aim. The aim of this study is to provide a selected theoretical-methodological analysis of the concept of negative freedom in relation to the political sphere of its application, to reveal and clarify the main political implications and normative claims that its recognition implies for political theory.
Concept. From a methodological point of view, the study is based on three justified assumptions: (1) that in modern political philosophy the idea of individual freedom is the main normative basis for political theories, (2) that philosophical development has brought several competing concepts of this idea and (3) that from its own content the concept implies basic requirements for its social and political application. For the purposes of theoretical-methodological analysis, we distinguished two different moments in the concept of individual freedom (freedom as a question of will and freedom as a question of practice) and from their point of view we examined the selected concept of negative freedom in an attempt to reveal its implicit claims at the political level.
Results. In the article, we have succeeded in formulating and arguing for the thesis that the concept of negative freedom in its applicability programmatically leads to a modus vivendi model of politics. We have shown that the concept of freedom and the model of politics are interrelated and normatively interdependent.
Conclusion. The main conclusion of the study is that the above model of politics cannot be generalised and considered equally acceptable for all conceptions of freedom and the good life.
Askland, A. (1993). Charles Taylor against the negative sense of freedom: An unjustified collapse and a persisting external authority. Auslegung: A Journal of Philosophy, 19(2), 123-132.
Berlin, I. (2002). Liberty. Oxford University Press.
Constant, B. (2015). The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns. Laissez Faire Books.
Dubniak, Z. (2021). Versions of pragmatic liberalism: from Rorty to Dewey. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 12(2), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2021.2.15.30
Gray, J. (2000). Two faces of liberalism. Polity Press.
Hapon, N., Vovk, A., Snyadanko, I., & Fedyna, L. (2021). Ontological security of an individual: attachment styles and coping strategies. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 12(2), 317-329. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2021.2.317.329
Hegel, G. W. F. (2008). Outlines of the philosophy of right. Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1965). Leviathan. Oxford University Press.
Honneth, A. (2014). Freedom’s right. The social foundations of democratic life. Polity Press.
Kant, I. (2006). Toward perpetual peace and other writings on politics, peace, and history. Yale University Press.
Květina, J. (2013). Antická pozitivní versus moderní negativní? Komparace pojetí svobody Benjamina Constanta a Isaiaha Berlina [Ancient positive versus modern negative? Comparison of Benjamin Constant’s and Isaiah Berlin’s concept of freedom] Filosofický Časopis, 61(4), 545-564.
Lesková, A. (2021). Etika rodiny: Výchova detí v mediálnej dobe [Family ethics: raising children in the media age]. Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre.
Mill, J. S. (2001). On liberty. Batoche Books.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books.
Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press.
Shapiro, I. (2003). The moral foundations of politics. Yale University Press.
Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the human sciences: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, C. (2003). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Turčan, C. (2019). A critique of the liberal concept of ethical pluralism in relation to the neutrality of the state. In P. Korený, A. Blaščíková, A. Michalík, C. Turčan, T. Zálešák, J. M. Byrska, & L. Šebíková. Disputes on the religious and ethical neutrality of the state (pp. 105-126). Albert.
Wendt, F. (2016). The moral standing of modus vivendi arrangements. Public Affairs Quarterly, 30(4), 351-370.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2023 Ciprian Turčan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. All authors agree for publishing their email adresses, affiliations and short bio statements with their articles during the submission process.