Freed against one's will
On the axis: Political liberty · benevolent coercion
From seatbelt laws to compulsory schooling to the addict weaned off against their will: can coercion make a person free? And if my "true" will can be invoked against the will I actually express, who decides which one is me?
Justification
Liberty is not the absence of hindrance or the right to do anything, but obedience to the law one has prescribed to oneself: a positive liberty, the autonomy of the citizen. Civil man exchanges his natural independence for moral liberty, the only kind that truly makes him master of himself. This is why whoever refuses to obey the , Rousseau writes in a formidable phrase, shall be « forced to be free ».
The impulse of mere appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty.The Social Contract, I, 8
Rousseau, The Social Contract, I, 7-8
Justification
The principle of On Liberty is negative: the only legitimate ground for constraining an individual is to prevent harm to others. Over himself, over his own body and mind, each is sovereign. Liberty is measured by the space shielded from interference.
On Liberty, ch. I
Justification
Maximising the general happiness exposes one to a potentially very heavy moral demand, since any action can be weighed against the greatest good. Yet Mill tempers this maximalism: everyday conduct is governed by tried secondary rules, and he does not expect from everyone the constant motive of the universal good, only that one do no harm and contribute on occasion.
Utilitarianism, ch. 2 (the secondary rules and the motive of actions)
Anchors: Rousseau · Mill · Berlin
leads to: Moral demandingness (Between consenting adults)