"There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought"

Charles Kingsley draws a sharp distinction between two types of freedom that often become confused: the freedom to do whatever one desires, and the freedom to do what is right or necessary. The first freedom, which he labels as false, focuses on the absence of external constraints or the ability to pursue personal whims without interference. This notion suggests that ultimate liberty is a matter of following one's inclinations, regardless of their moral or social impact.

However, Kingsley challenges this definition by suggesting such freedom is illusory. When individuals only follow their impulses, they may easily become enslaved to their own desires, habits, or passions. This kind of unrestricted liberty fails to acknowledge how certain actions, although seemingly free, can undermine character, relationships, and the well-being of the wider community. It can lead to chaos, selfishness, and even a kind of internal bondage as a person loses control over their own impulses.

True freedom, as Kingsley proposes, is the ability to do what one ought to do, what is morally, ethically, and socially responsible. This kind of freedom does not mean simply doing what one wants, but having the internal strength and discernment to act according to higher principles or duties. It requires self-mastery, the capacity to choose the good even when it is difficult, and often the courage to place principle above personal preference. In this sense, true liberty is not passed down simply by removing outside restraints, but is cultivated within by developing virtue and wisdom.

Thus, Kingsley’s distinction invites reflection on human nature and society. Real freedom is intimately tied to responsibility and self-discipline rather than whim or caprice. Only by striving to do what is right does an individual become genuinely free, transcending both external control and the tyranny of their lesser selves.