The concepts of liberty and autonomy are central to political philosophy and are crucial for understanding the relationship between individuals and the state. While the terms are often used interchangeably, it is important to distinguish between the two concepts. In this paper, I examine the primary differences between liberty and autonomy, drawing on the works of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Finally, I argue that autonomy should be the primary value to organize political society and depict what it might look like in terms of its political and social institutions.

Liberty or Autonomy?

Liberty and autonomy, though related, represent distinct theories of freedom within the field of political philosophy. Both concepts address various dimensions of individual and collective freedoms in a political society, yet they emphasize different aspects of freedom. Some thinkers approach the subject with a metaphysical perspective, such as Kant, while others align more with an atomistic view, like Mill. It is necessary to make this distinction as it allows us to recognize potential trade-offs and tensions within political and social systems, ideologies, or policy decisions. Policies that promote individual liberty may sometimes come at the expense of collective autonomy or vice versa. Acknowledging these differences helps in weighing the benefits and drawbacks of each approach, facilitating a more informed and balanced discussion of the two concepts of freedom.

Immanuel Kant

For Kant, liberty and autonomy are closely tied to his broader moral philosophy, which emphasizes the importance of acting according to rational principles and normative moral laws. In his view, liberty is about respecting the rights and freedoms of others while acting in accordance with one’s rational nature. Kant views autonomy as the opposite of heteronomy, or “all laws fixed on an object,” as he puts it. Kant’s conception of liberty to act is limited by his categorical imperative, such that an individual should not act out of pleasure or reward but a priori—through reason. Through this reason, Kant expects an individual to act the way they want others to act, assuming it is a reasonable request of rational individuals. Kant’s philosophy aligns closely with Isaiah Berlin’s modern notion of negative freedom, such that an individual’s actions are not impeded by external forces. For example, an individual who orders a pizza topped with pineapple, anchovies, and chocolate chips, which others might find repulsive and unconventional, is exercising their negative freedom. They are free to enjoy their unique pizza creation, as it respects the individual’s right to make their own choices as long as they do not harm others (and as long as they are not ordering for a group).

Kant did not explicitly differentiate between autonomy and liberty; however, his work in metaphysics helps extricate these differences by introducing noumenal and phenomenal realms. The noumenal realm is the world of the unknown, or ‘things-in-themselves,’ which cannot be directly experienced. The phenomenal realm refers to the domain of observable and experiential reality, where appearances arise from the interaction between our sensory perceptions and cognitive processes. Kant argued that human agents reside in both realms at once. Considering his belief that our noumenal self can employ effective causality within the phenomenal realm, he argued that individual autonomy is shaped by the autonomy we possess in the noumenal realm. In other words, one’s true self (noumenal self) can influence the world they experience (phenomenal realm), and their ability to act autonomously is significantly shaped by the freedom they possess in the noumenal realm.

In contrast to the noumenal realm, the phenomenal realm is more closely associated with individual liberty. The phenomenal realm represents the world of tangible experience and sensory perception, where individuals are subject to external influence and the laws of nature. Here, liberty can be understood as the freedom from constraints or interferences by others in one’s decision-making and actions (negative liberty).

While Kant postulated that our autonomy is primarily derived from the noumenal realm, it is essential to recognize that an individual’s capacity to exercise liberty is deeply influenced by their interactions within the phenomenal realm. The cultivation of individual liberty in the phenomenal realm can, in turn, significantly impact the overall realization of autonomy as found in the noumenal realm. As individuals achieve a greater sense of liberty, they become more capable of aligning their actions with their true, noumenal selves. This relationship between the phenomenal realm and the noumenal realm suggests a reciprocal influence between liberty and autonomy. By promoting individual liberty in the phenomenal realm, we create an environment conducive to the exercise of autonomy, thereby allowing individuals to better develop their noumenal selves. In this sense, while the noumenal realm shapes our capacity for autonomy, the conditions of the phenomenal realm ultimately govern how effectively we can exercise our autonomy and manifest our noumenal freedom in the world of experience.

John Stuart Mill

In On Liberty, Mill passionately advocates for the importance of individual liberty, emphasizing that personal freedom is not only necessary for self-development but also for the collective advancement of society. While both terms relate to an individual's freedom, Mill emphasizes their inherent differences and the unique roles they play in shaping human development and society. Autonomy, as Mill explains, is the ability of individuals to exercise self-governance and self-determination, making choices based on their values, preferences, and moral principles. This concept is closely linked to the development of one's character and the cultivation of personal virtues, which are essential to a well-rounded and meaningful life. In On Liberty, Mill asserts that autonomy is necessary for individuals to reach their full potential and develop a strong sense of moral agency. He supports this notion with his "experiments in living" idea, advocating for the freedom to engage in diverse experiences, learn from mistakes, and develop a deeper understanding of oneself and the world.

On the other hand, liberty is characterized by the absence of external constraints or interference in an individual's actions, allowing them the freedom to pursue their goals and interests. Mill distinguishes between two types of liberty: individual and social. Individual liberty refers to the freedom of thought, expression, and association, while social liberty is concerned with the protection of individual rights from the tyranny of the majority or oppressive government. In On Liberty, Mill proposes the "harm principle" as a guideline for determining the limits of individual liberty. This principle states that the only legitimate reason for restricting an individual's freedom is to prevent harm to others.

Mill's distinction between autonomy and liberty becomes clearer when considering the implications of each concept on society. Autonomy, as a form of self-governance, is essential for creating a diverse and vibrant culture, fostering innovation, and promoting moral growth. By contrast, liberty serves as a safeguard against the infringement of individual rights and the suppression of dissenting voices, contributing to a more open and democratic society. However, it is vital to recognize the interdependence of autonomy and liberty in Mill's philosophy. A society that values liberty must also create conditions that foster autonomy, as the freedom to make choices and express oneself is fundamental to cultivating individuality and moral character. Conversely, a society that supports autonomy must protect the liberty of its citizens to ensure that individuals can freely pursue their goals and aspirations.

Mill's work in On Liberty offers a thorough and insightful analysis of the concepts of autonomy and liberty. By emphasizing the distinctions and interplay between these two principles, Mill's philosophy continues to provide valuable guidance for understanding the role of individual freedom in personal growth and societal progress. As contemporary debates and challenges continue to evolve, Mill's ideas remain a crucial foundation for exploring the complexities of autonomy and liberty in modern society.

Designing a Political Society

In designing a political society that supports both Kantian and Millian interpretations of autonomy while upholding liberty, we must first acknowledge the interdependence between these concepts. Both Kant and Mill emphasize that individual liberty is a prerequisite for achieving true autonomy. To realize this balance between autonomy and liberty, we need to create social and political institutions that encourage individuals to exercise their moral agency while ensuring their rights and freedoms are protected. Education is a fundamental institution that can foster autonomy in both Kantian and Millian senses. A robust education system should emphasize critical thinking, moral reasoning, and the development of individual values. By equipping individuals with the tools to make informed and rational choices, education enables them to exercise their autonomy responsibly. Furthermore, education should promote open-mindedness and tolerance, cultivating a society that values diverse perspectives and encourages individual expression in line with Mill's idea of "experiments in living."

Another key institution is the legal and judicial system. In the Kantian tradition, this system should uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law. It should ensure that individuals are treated as ends in themselves, rather than as mere means to others' ends. In the Millian tradition, the legal system should emphasize the protection of individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association. The harm principle, as proposed by Mill, should serve as the guideline for determining the legitimate limits of individual liberty. Democratic governance is another essential component in a political society that balances autonomy and liberty. A democratic system allows for the representation of diverse opinions and interests, ensuring that minority voices are heard and valued. This system should prioritize transparency, accountability, and the protection of individual rights to foster an environment where liberty and autonomy can coexist and mutually reinforce each other.

Moreover, the role of social institutions, such as healthcare and social welfare systems, cannot be overlooked. These institutions should aim to reduce inequalities and ensure that all members of society have access to the resources and opportunities necessary for the realization of their autonomy. By providing a safety net and promoting social justice, these institutions can create a more inclusive society where individual liberty is not compromised for the sake of collective autonomy. Creating a political society that supports both Kantian and Millian interpretations of autonomy while upholding liberty requires a delicate balance between individual freedoms and societal cohesion. By designing social and political institutions that emphasize education, justice, democratic governance, and social welfare, we can foster an environment where individuals can develop their moral agency and pursue their unique paths while respecting the rights and freedoms of others. This delicate balance is crucial for the development of a thriving, diverse, and cohesive society grounded in the shared values of justice, equality, and respect for human dignity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has examined the concepts of liberty and autonomy, highlighting their differences and interdependence in the context of political philosophy. By drawing on the works of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, we have explored the nuances of these concepts and the importance of balancing both in the design of a political society. To achieve this balance, we have proposed the establishment of social and political institutions that emphasize education, justice, democratic governance, and social welfare, which would create an environment conducive to individual growth and societal cohesion.

---

Works Cited

Berlin, Isaiah. “Two Concepts of Liberty.” Liberty, March 7, 2002, 166–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/019924989x.003.0004.

Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason up to the end of the Analytic, in the version by Jonathan Bennett presented at www.earlymoderntexts.com, May 2007.

Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason the Dialectic, in the version by Jonathan Bennett presented at www.earlymoderntexts.com, Jan 2008.

Kant, Immanuel, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, in the version by Jonathan Bennett presented at www.earlymoderntexts.com, Sept 2008.

Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty. Reprint, Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001.

---

Explainer

I think I did a pretty decent job at explaining/defining Kant’s perspective on autonomy and liberty, but lacked substance with regard to Mill. Mill’s definitions of liberty and autonomy seemed less abstract than Kant’s, which made it difficult to critically engage with his work. I should have invested more time into Mill’s other works, like System of Logic or Utilitarianism, but I wanted to focus less on ideology and more on the ontological and psychological aspects of each thinker’s ideations. Overall, I think I deserve a B-.

Final Grade: 96/100