freedom - Articles - Just Human?2024-03-29T14:57:18Zhttps://just-human.net/articles/feed/tag/freedomDon't Be Fooled by Abstractionhttps://just-human.net/articles/don-t-be-fooled-by-abstraction2023-09-07T14:47:03.000Z2023-09-07T14:47:03.000ZPaul Hazeldenhttps://just-human.net/members/PaulHazelden<div><p style="text-align:center;">[Back to <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/improving-ourselves">Improving Ourselves</a>]</p>
<h1>Introduction</h1>
<p>Many of our conflicts and difficulties are the result of our tendency to create abstractions (truth, justice, freedom, greed, hate, jealousy, ...) and then argue about them. Is justice more important than freedom? Is positive discrimination fair? Given the choice, should you betray your friend or your country? I want to argue that all such questions are unhelpful: they are based upon the mistaken assumption that the abstractions in question actually exist, and can therefore be compared. While we constantly (and quite properly) use abstractions, we have to remember that, in the end, they are only useful ways of talking about the real world. We may often find it helpful and enlightening to talk about 'freedom', but what it refers to is a person who desires or needs to do some specific thing in some concrete setting.</p>
<p>Scientists also get confused at times, and start to assume that the abstractions they deal with actually exist. They create maps or models of reality, simplified versions which help us to understand and calculate specific things. The map may be a very accurate representation of some things,and it may be very useful in some circumstances, but it is only a map, and the map is not the place. </p>
<h1>Social Examples</h1>
<p>To take an obvious example, we are familiar in fiction with characters who have an unquestioning loyalty to their nation: "My country, right or wrong!" We are rarely allowed to interrogate exactly what they understand by 'my country' - the leader, the government, their chain of command, some vague sense of what their country stands for? The strange thing is that this stance is often presented as a moral position, when it is quite explicitly amoral. Countries are abstractions which often have great power over us.</p>
<p>More concretely, the first line of the <em>Proclamation of the Irish Republic</em> says, "In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom." Sitting in our comfortable homes, the idea that Ireland speaks through us, and through us "summons her children," may seem quaint and curious, but it was real and important enough to cause many people to fight and die. Closer to home, people who want 'foreigners' to 'go home', even if they were born in this country, generally justify their opinion on the grounds of defending their country's character.</p>
<p>Conflict between different groups is often justified - by all the groups involved - on the grounds that "We have to defend our rights." In recent years, there has been bitter conflict between many in the Women's Movement and supporters of Trans people. In many parts of the world, there is ongoing conflict over abortion, between supporters of a "woman's right to choose" and supporters of "the right to life" of the unborn.</p>
<p>None of these conflicts can be solved as a matter of principle, in the abstract: the 'rights' being claimed by each party are in direct opposition. But none of these conflicts need to be solved in the abstract - they only need to be solved, or resolved, when there is a question about what should happen in some concrete situation, involving specific individuals, with their own unique needs and concerns, like and dislikes, fears and priorities. As soon as we insist on dealing with the concrete situation simply as an example of an abstract clash of principle, we have guaranteed that one party at least will lose and, as they see it, suffer injustice - which will be stored up to fuel some future rematch.</p>
<h1>Scientific Examples</h1>
<p>Newton's theory of gravity helps us calculate, for example, how a cannonball will travel. Except that it's only an approximation: it doesn't enable us to allow for air resistance. And, if you want to be precise, the moon and the sun also affect the trajectory of the cannonball. And that is before you start to take Relativity into account. Newton's gravity is a great map, but, like all maps, it only tells us about the things it deals with.</p>
<p>Einstein introduced the idea of space-time: time is somehow a part of space, not like a celestial clock with a regular tick heard everywhere, as Newton conceived it. We treat time as a dimension when we do relativistic calculations, but this does not mean that time really is a dimension like the three physical dimensions we are familiar with. Using this map, we do calculations which treat time as a dimension, and those calculations work, but that does not make time a dimension: the map is not the place, it is just a simplified model of the place.</p>
<p> </p></div>Am I Free?https://just-human.net/articles/am-i-free2022-11-21T20:03:30.000Z2022-11-21T20:03:30.000ZPaul Hazeldenhttps://just-human.net/members/PaulHazelden<div><p style="text-align:center;">[Back to <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom">Freedom</a>]</p>
<h1>Introduction</h1>
<p>For as long as people have been asking questions, one way or another we have been asking this basic question: am I free?</p>
<p>This question matters. It isn't just some piece of abstract philosophy - although it can be treated that way. At other times, people wrestle with the question, and when they have doubts about the answer, this uncertainty can make their lives harder and darker than it needs to be.</p>
<p>There are many reasons why you are not perfectly free:</p>
<ul>
<li>physical reality limits your freedom (you are not free to fly like a bird or breath underwater or walk to the moon);</li>
<li>social reality limits your freedom (you have obligations, you are not free to break the law or go against the many social conventions which bind you); and</li>
<li>the abstract concept itself limits your freedom (freedom is an ambiguous, paradoxical and self-contradictory concept).</li>
</ul>
<p>But when people struggle with the question or try to deny their freedom, it is usually for one of two common reasons: they are wrestling with either fate or responsibility.</p>
<h1>Fate</h1>
<p>Our discussions of fate go back at least to the ancient Greeks, who had the idea that each person has a fate, a destiny which they are inevitably drawn to. This is not the same as thinking that your choices are predetermined: according to their understanding, you could make any decision you like, but whatever you choose, it will make no difference - no substantial difference - in the end.</p>
<p>(People sometime play with the idea that all our choices are predetermined, but every time they make a choice, the experience of choosing contradicts that idea. Nothing can prove that our choices are not predetermined, but nobody can actually live as though it is true.)</p>
<p>We don't always call this 'fate' - there are various words which can be used. Very confident people sometimes believe they are destined for great things; unhappy parents sometimes curse their offspring with the prophecy that "You will never amount to anything." But it's all just fate with a different name, and whether you think it is good or bad, it is damaging: you will not put as much effort into making the right choice if you believe that it will make no difference in the end, or even if you only suspect it.</p>
<p>It can be tempting, sometimes, to think that your choices and your actions don't make any difference. Certainly, sometimes you fail, but even then, while your actions do not achieve what you wanted, your failure can achieve other things - for example, you can learn from it, and you can inspire others. Aspects of the future are probably unchangeable (the sun is likely to rise tomorrow morning, whatever your feelings on the subject), but other aspects of the future will be affected by what you do, even if they are not determined by your actions alone.</p>
<h1>Responsibility</h1>
<p>The other perspective is that we don't like taking the blame for our actions - we try, all too often, to find ways to reduce or remove that responsibility. We make many different excuses: he made me do it; I didn't see the cyclist; the judge didn't like me; the selection process was unfair. And we can also use one of the most basic of all excuses: I couldn't help it, that's just the way I am.</p>
<p>Of course, you are 'just' the way you are. Reality is what it is, and you are part of that reality. But the future is not yet written, and every time you make a choice you select, from the many possibilities, the future you want to create, the person you want to become, and the impact you want to have on others.</p>
<p>Things don't always work out as you intended: sometimes your actions don't have the consequences you expected, maybe because you misunderstood something, or you weren't paying attention, or you had been misled in some way. There is a longstanding debate about whether you are responsible for the consequences of your actions (intended or not), or whether you are responsible for the intended consequences, but most people recognize that they both matter - and the greater the anticipated impact on other people, the greater your responsibility to be careful and check your understanding and assumptions before you act.</p>
<p>Some things are outside our control, and sometimes our actions have completely unexpected consequences - as when you are driving along an empty road and someone shoots out of a side turn and runs straight into you. We are not rational creatures in such circumstances: if I had not taken that route, the accident would not have occurred. It may be true, but that does not make you responsible. And the lack of rationality works both ways: when you were rude to that bloke in the pub's girlfriend, you might not have known he would hit you, but you should have known it was a possibility. Being responsible for our actions involves taking reasonable care to anticipate the possible consequences, even when we don't know for certain what the outcome will be.</p>
<h1>Summary</h1>
<p>In short: you are not <em>perfectly</em> free - nobody is - but you are <em>sufficiently</em> free.</p>
<p>You are sufficiently free to be able to choose how to act and the impact you want your actions to have on others, and you are sufficiently free to take responsibility for your choice.</p>
<p>And this is all the freedom you need.</p>
<p>Of course, freedom is a big and complicated subject. There are other, <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom">related articles</a> on the subject if you would like to explore it further.</p>
<p> </p></div>Freedom and Societyhttps://just-human.net/articles/freedom-and-society2022-04-28T22:06:50.000Z2022-04-28T22:06:50.000ZPaul Hazeldenhttps://just-human.net/members/PaulHazelden<div><p>Because freedom is not an absolute good, we cannot argue that something must (or must not) be allowed on the basis that this will increase freedom. While freedom can be increased or decreased for specific people (prisoners can be set free, and free people can be locked up), when you are dealing with freedom in the abstract, the only thing you can do is move it around from one place to another. </p>
<p>Of course, this does not prevent us from arguing that some person or people should be free: for example, we can always think of people who have been unjustly imprisoned, and campaigning for their release is a good thing to do. But the campaign is always on the basis that (for example) the legal system has failed and this wrongness in the system should be corrected - you never argue this person should be set free because freedom is good.</p>
<p>The freedom to do what I want always needs to be balanced against the freedom not to experience things I don't want. So, for example, the more free you are to be protected from the risk of injury at work, the less free I am to run my business by prioritizing profit over health and safety. If I am free to pollute the river, you are not free to drink from an unpolluted river. If I am free to say what I want, you are not free from the effects and consequences of my words.</p>
<p>So if we increase the freedom of one kind of person, we will always decrease the freedom of another kind. The big question every society faces is always how we should best balance the different freedoms of people in different situations.</p>
<p>A traditional liberal approach is to say that freedom should only be limited when necessary, but different societies differ in what they consider to be necessary. One starting point is to suggest that we should limit freedom in order to achieve certain specific aims.</p>
<ul>
<li>prevent actual harm (murder is illegal)</li>
<li>prevent a significant risk of harm (you may only drive on one side of the road)</li>
<li>protect property (stealing is illegal)</li>
<li>protect the exercise of key freedoms (children cannot be employed, so they are free to attend and fully benefit from school)</li>
<li>prevent corruption (bribing officials is illegal)</li>
</ul>
<p>When considering society, you can't usefully talk about freedom purely in the abstract - you need to talk about more specific freedoms: who should be free to do what, and when? Most of us easily say that we believe in free speech, but in practice recognize that our speech needs to be limited in various ways. In order to have a sensible discussion about free speech, we need to be clear what limitations we believe should be in place.</p>
<p>So, for example, I believe you should not be allowed to harm me by your speech, but you should be free to say things I find offensive or insulting, and things I believe to be blasphemous.</p>
<p>I also believe that a healthy society should have clear laws which are enforced, but it should also have values which are commonly accepted but which do not have the force of law. Telling lies, for example, should be contrary to our values, but simple lies should not be punished by the legal system. The use of lies to defraud someone, on the other hand, should be punished by the legal system. Cheating on your partner should be contrary to society's values, but it should not be against the law.</p>
<p> When discussing freedom, we often get confused by these different contexts. I am free to commit murder because I have the ability to perform the deed, but I am not free to do it because the law prohibits and punishes such activity. I am free to walk naked down the High Street because I have the ability and the law does not prohibit it, but I am not free to do it because of the social consequences.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[See also <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom">Freedom</a> and <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/the-meaning-of-freedom">The Meaning of Freedom</a>]</p>
<p> </p></div>Kinds of Freedomhttps://just-human.net/articles/kinds-of-freedom2022-01-27T01:55:24.000Z2022-01-27T01:55:24.000ZPaul Hazeldenhttps://just-human.net/members/PaulHazelden<div><h1>Introduction</h1>
<p>Discussions about freedom often identify two distinct kinds of freedom, often described as '<em>freedom from</em>' and '<em>freedom to</em>'. We can have <em>freedom from</em> the constraints of society, and we can have <em>freedom to</em> do what we want to do. Some people identify a third kind of freedom, which can be described as '<em>freedom to be</em>' - <em>freedom to be</em> yourself, <em>freedom to be</em> your true self, or <em>freedom to be</em> who you were meant to be.</p>
<p>In the discussion of freedom on this site - or, at least, the discussion so far - we focus on the traditional two kinds of freedom, and ignore the third kind. This is not because the issues raised by the third kind are unimportant, but because they are quite distinct from the issues raised by the first two. Freedom is a complicated enough subject already, and attempting to address all three kinds at the same time would unnecessarily complicate the discussion even more.</p>
<p>[See <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/the-meaning-of-freedom">The Meaning of Freedom</a> for more about <em>freedom from</em> and <em>freedom to</em>]</p>
<h1>Being Yourself</h1>
<p>There are a number of assumptions built into the third kind of freedom - assumptions which are not present when discussing the first two kinds of freedom. It raises complex questions about the nature of personal identity, and the existence - for each one of us - of a 'true self' which is evidently independent of our choices and actions, and which we can somehow discover. It raises questions about how we can discover our true self - and how we might determine whether our true self is someone who perseveres through opposition and difficulty, or someone who goes with the flow; whether it is someone who is always looking to have a good time, or someone who is always looking for ways to help others; whether is is someone whose focus is on their personal advancement, or someone who is determined to do the right thing whether it benefits them or not. It raises questions about what might stop me being my true self, and what I can do to overcome it.</p>
<p>And when you start to raise questions about who you were meant to be, this assumes that there is someone who knows both who you are and who you can become, and has a plan, a desire or an intention concerning what kind of person you should become - which is very much in the territory of some of the traditional religions. Christianity teaches that we are less than we were intended to be, but through a combination of hard work and God's grace we can participate in the process of becoming who we were made to be.</p>
<p>So the <em>freedom to be</em> raises many interesting questions, but these are quite different from the issues covered by the traditional discussion of freedom. No doubt we will get around to considering them at some point ...</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>[See also <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom">Freedom</a> and <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/the-meaning-of-freedom">The Meaning of Freedom</a>]</p>
<p> </p></div>The Desire for Freedomhttps://just-human.net/articles/the-desire-for-freedom2022-01-08T21:46:07.000Z2022-01-08T21:46:07.000ZPaul Hazeldenhttps://just-human.net/members/PaulHazelden<div><p style="text-align:center;">[Back to <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom">Freedom</a>]</p>
<p>"I want to be free!"</p>
<p>Of course you do. We desire freedom, especially when we feel it has been denied to us. We also desire autonomy and power. But not all the things we desire are good for us, and we frequently choose to do things we regret afterwards. Desire, it turns out, is not a good guide for living.</p>
<p>The truth is, while we desire freedom, most of the things which matter to us are the result of limiting our freedom. We desire freedom, but we desire other things more. And we find that choosing to limit our freedom in some ways actually expands our freedom in other, more important, ways. Also, even when choosing to limit our freedom in some way does not expand our freedom in other ways, it can make life richer, deeper and more meaningful.</p>
<p>So, for example: a job will limit your freedom: the employer tells you when you have to work, where you have to be, what you have to do, and how you have to do it. There may be some flexibility in some of the details, but basically you are being paid to limit your freedom and do what you are told. At least, a job will limit your freedom in certain ways, here and now. But a job will give you money, which extends your freedom in other ways, and a good job will develop your skills, extend your range of experience and open up many more possibilities and opportunities in the future.</p>
<p>Getting married is possibly the greatest restriction of your freedom of all: choosing one person and rejecting all others - even those you have not yet met - can seem absurd to some, but that commitment - that limitation of your freedom - can bring the greatest joy and the greatest rewards of your life. Similarly, children limit your freedom: they take your time and money and energy, they tie you down, but few people choose to live without them.</p>
<p>You could say that, as a human being, I am defined by the commitments I make, and by the freedoms I choose to reject. My identity as a human being is intimately connected with the choices I have made, and by the way I decide - or fail - to honour those choices.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p></div>Freedomhttps://just-human.net/articles/freedom2022-01-07T22:29:56.000Z2022-01-07T22:29:56.000ZPaul Hazeldenhttps://just-human.net/members/PaulHazelden<div><p style="text-align:center;">[Back to <a href="https://just-human.net/spiritual-challenges">Spiritual Challenges</a>]</p>
<p>Freedom is a subject people have talked and argued about for a very long time. The aim of these articles is not to end the arguments, but to provide a possible framework within which we can have clear and constructive discussions about freedom, understanding it as a concept which is ambiguous, paradoxical and self-contradictory.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://just-human.net/articles/am-i-free">Am I free?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://just-human.net/articles/the-meaning-of-freedom">The Meaning of Freedom</a></li>
<li><a href="https://just-human.net/articles/the-desire-for-freedom">The Desire for Freedom</a></li>
<li><a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom-and-responsibility">Freedom and Responsibility</a></li>
<li><a href="https://just-human.net/articles/rights-and-obligations">Rights and Obligations</a></li>
<li><a href="https://just-human.net/articles/kinds-of-freedom">Kinds of Freedom</a></li>
<li><a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom-and-society">Freedom and Society</a></li>
<li><a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom-and-free-will">Freedom and Free Will</a></li>
</ul>
<p>As always, these ideas are not presented as the final word, but as a helpful starting point for discussion.</p>
<p> </p></div>The Meaning of Freedomhttps://just-human.net/articles/the-meaning-of-freedom2022-01-07T22:21:28.000Z2022-01-07T22:21:28.000ZPaul Hazeldenhttps://just-human.net/members/PaulHazelden<div><h1>Introduction</h1>
<p>We care a great deal about freedom, but we rarely give much thought to what the term actually means. People have argued about the meaning of ‘freedom’ for a long time. I would like to suggest that one major reason why we struggle with the concept is because the meaning of freedom is paradoxical, partial and ambiguous: there is an inherent contradiction in the idea of freedom; it is an important value, but it is only one value among many; and it means different things at different times, depending both on the setting and on what we are concerned about.</p>
<h1>Paradoxical: Two Types of Freedom</h1>
<p>It is generally recognised that there are two basic types of freedom - <strong><em>freedom to</em></strong> and <strong><em>freedom from</em></strong> - <em>freedom to</em> do what I want, and <em>freedom from</em> things I don't want. If we consider these two types of freedom, then the meaning of <em>freedom from</em> is the more straightforward of the two. If we talk about 'freedom from hunger', we have a fairly clear understanding of what this means, and that understanding is fairly consistent from person to person and culture to culture. But <em>freedom to</em> is much harder to pin down.</p>
<p><em>Freedom to</em> is generally understood as the power or right to act as I want – to think, speak and act without constraint. But when we include both ‘power’ and ‘right’, we are recognising that ‘freedom’ can mean quite different things, even in a single context – it can be both present and absent at the same time, depending on how we think about the situation. If I stand by your side as you do something important on your computer, I have the <em>power</em> to switch off your computer, but I don’t have the <em>right</em>. I am free to press the power button, and also not free, depending on which aspect of the situation you are interested in.</p>
<p>If <em>freedom to</em> is the freedom to act as I want, without constraint, then the nature of this freedom is determined by the kind of constraint I have in mind. Constraints vary with context, and can take many forms. For example, we can be constrained by a physical barrier; we can be constrained by internal realities, such as love, fear, ignorance or morality; we can even be constrained by a belief that we should obey the law.</p>
<p>It should be clear that, within any given society, these two types of freedom are in opposition to each other, in two distinct ways: firstly, the more I have <em>freedom to</em>, the less you have <em>freedom from</em>; and, secondly, the more freedom I have to do what I want, the less freedom you have to oppose me. And people sometimes talk about a third kind of freedom [see <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/kinds-of-freedom">Kinds of Freedom</a>].</p>
<p>The contradiction between these two types of freedom is not always obvious. They are often presented as being complementary - and, in a sense, they are: we want and need both types, so they belong together in (for example) political rhetoric. Roosevelt's '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms" target="_blank">four freedoms</a>' is a well-known example, containing two of each type - freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and fredom from fear. We need to build a world in which both types of freedom are respected and lived. </p>
<h1>Ambiguous: Context and Focus</h1>
<p>When we talk about freedom, the meaning depends to a large extent upon the context: freedom can be limited in many different ways - here are some obvious situations. There are many other examples which could be given, and many other contexts, but these should be enough to demonstrate a range of possibilities.</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Physical</strong>: a prisoner in a locked cell; a psychiatric patient in a secure ward; a dissident denied a visa to leave their country.</li>
<li><strong>Love</strong>: someone remaining in a loveless marriage for the sake of their children.</li>
<li><strong>Fear</strong>: someone trapped in an abusive relationship by the fear of what will happen if they try to leave; a dissident in a totalitarian state, unable to write and publish what they believe for fear of the consequences.</li>
<li><strong>Ignorance</strong>: a bright child going to a failing school because nobody told them about the bursary scheme operated by an excellent school nearby.</li>
<li><strong>Morality</strong>: a political prisoner refusing the offer of release if they will give evidence against their colleagues; not saying something to your advantage because it would mean breaking a confidence.</li>
<li><strong>Law</strong>: a person driving on a wide, straight, empty and dry road in daylight, late for an important appointment but keeping to the speed limit because that is what the law says they should do.</li>
</ul>
<p>Of course, these categories are not exhaustive, and they are not exclusive. I drive on the correct side of the road, partly because I want to obey the law, and partly because I am afraid of the consequences if I drive on the wrong side. So when we talk about freedom, the meaning is not only determined by the context - it is also determined by the aspect of freedom we choose to focus on at that time.</p>
<h1>Partial: Choosing to Limit Freedom</h1>
<p>Our freedom can be limited by many external things, but we can also choose to limit our freedom: we choose to get married, to have children, to get a job, to join a sports team. Every commitment we make limits our freedom. We desire freedom, but sometimes - as with marriage - we desire something else more. Whenever we commit ourselves to a person, a group or a principle, we decide that something else is more important to us than freedom in this situation.</p>
<p>It is often the case that different freedoms will exclude one another. In an election, you are free to vote for one candidate, and you are free to vote for a different candidate, but you are not free to vote for both of them: choosing to exercise one freedom means giving up another freedom. From a different perspective, you can be free to be faithful to your partner, and you can be free to sleep around, but you cannot be free to do both.</p>
<p>Our freedom can also be limited by our desire for another kind of freedom: as we have noted, <em>freedom from</em> and <em>freedom to</em> pull us in opposite directions. Take health and safety as an example: I am only <em>free from</em> the risk of serious harm in the workplace if my boss is not <em>free to</em> cut corners on health and safety measures. I am only <em>free from</em> the risk of serious harm when I drive on our roads because your <em>freedom to</em> drive when and how you want is limited by the Highway Code. With children, we restrict their <em>freedom to</em> be employed because we want to give them <em>freedom from</em> exploitation, and we want them to be free to gain knowledge and develop skills which will benefit them later. Social reforms often involve a choice between <em>freedom from</em> and <em>freedom to;</em> when we choose <em>freedom from</em>, this is often because we value security more than we value some other kind of freedom.</p>
<h1>Summary</h1>
<p>In conclusion, 'freedom' is a paradoxical idea: the more freedom we have of one type, the less freedom we have of another. Freedom limits itself. There is no such thing as complete, perfect freedom.</p>
<p>Also, ‘freedom’ is a deeply ambiguous term. When used in a specific context and using a specific perspective, it can have a clear meaning; but when used without an explicit perspective and context, there is no clear meaning. Freedom means different things to the prisoner in the cell, the married person about to get a divorce, and the writer in a totalitarian state.</p>
<p>And finally, freedom is always partial - not only because one freedom pulls against another, but also because freedom is only one value among many. Freedom is important, but it can, at times, be a distracting idea, attracting our attention when we should be focused on something else - perhaps health and wellbeing, or the potential for growth and development. It may be that we find ourselves talking about freedom when we are discussing an individual’s rights and responsibilities within a society, when freedom is not the most useful perspective from which to consider the question.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[See also <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom">Freedom</a>, <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/kinds-of-freedom">Kinds of Freedom</a> and <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom-and-responsibility">Freedom and Responsibility</a>]</p>
<p> </p></div>Freedom and Responsibilityhttps://just-human.net/articles/freedom-and-responsibility2021-10-06T18:37:34.000Z2021-10-06T18:37:34.000ZPaul Hazeldenhttps://just-human.net/members/PaulHazelden<div><h1>Introduction</h1>
<p>We have a problem, several problems, in fact: we want to be free, and we want to be part of a community – and the two don’t entirely go together. Also, while we are clear we want to be free, we struggle with the concept. Often, this does not matter – but sometimes, after fighting for freedom alongside others, we discover that we were fighting for two quite different and incompatible versions of freedom. That can hurt.</p>
<h1>I Want to be Free</h1>
<p>Freedom is a tricky concept. We generally think we know what it is, until we try to define it. We want a definition so we can agree on the meaning when we talk about it with other people, but any definition of freedom will tell us about some abstract thing and we only encounter freedom in specifics.</p>
<p>Some people desperately long for freedom. It may be a teenager irritated by their parents’ insistence that they are home by a certain time, a prisoner languishing in a cell, or an artist in a totalitarian state unable to express their ideas. Whenever we desire freedom, it is always a specific freedom we want – a freedom we are painfully aware that we lack. When the prisoner in a cell says, “I want to be free!”, we know exactly what they mean.</p>
<p>I want to be free, but I know that sometimes what I want is not good for me. Sometimes I choose not to be free. [See <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/the-desire-for-freedom">The Desire for Freedom</a>]</p>
<h1>Freedom: From and To</h1>
<p>But we do not only care about having the freedom to do things: we also care about being free from the things which seek to control, threaten, limit, abuse, harm and hinder us. We want to be free from hunger, thirst, sickness, poverty, fear and surveillance.</p>
<p>When I look at it purely from my own perspective, this makes perfect sense: of course I desire to be free to do what I want and free from the things which get in the way of this. But I can’t look at it purely from my own perspective. I need other people, both to survive and to flourish, and these other people also have their own needs and desires.</p>
<p>If we can affect one another and I am free to do <em>this</em>, then you are not free from having <em>this </em>done. My <em>freedom to </em>limits your <em>freedom from </em>– and if you have the same <em>freedom to</em>, this also limits my own <em>freedom from</em>. If I am free to shout aloud in the street, then you are not free to use the street without hearing someone shouting. If I am <em>free to</em> write what I like about you in a newspaper, then you are not<em> free from</em> the risk of being slandered.</p>
<p>We choose as a society to limit our <em>freedom to</em> do certain things in order to give us <em>freedom from</em> the consequences; we limit some freedoms in order to give us other freedoms. So, for example, we are not free to keep all the money we earn: we pay taxes so that (amongst other things) we will be free to travel along safely maintained roads; we limit travel to one side of the carriageway so that we are free to travel without running headlong into other road users. We prevent people from employing children so that all children are free to attend school - the children can be <em>free from</em> ignorance because employers are enot <em>free to</em> employ them.</p>
<h1>Freedom and Balance</h1>
<p>This is the basic reason why we cannot be free in some abstract, absolute sense: the more freedom we have of one type, the less freedom we have of another type. How much (and in what areas) should people be free to do what they want, and how much should their behaviour be limited for the sake of others? You always have to choose how to balance the various freedoms. The USA and Scandinavia both value freedom, they just choose a different point of balance. [See also <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/politics-some-underlying-issues" target="_blank">Politics: Some Underlying Issues</a>]</p>
<p>Of course, there is not just one point of balance – there are many distinct areas where this balance has to be found. What I can say about you is one thing, what I can say about the government is another; what I can do to you is one thing, what I can do to the environment is another.</p>
<p>One of the challenging and refreshing aspects of learning to live in a different country is the discovery that they do things differently here: it is not just the language and foods which are different, the way people treat each other is different: what is normal in one place is rude in another; you have to discover the correct, socially acceptable balance in many different areas of custom and behaviour.</p>
<h1>Freedom and Culture</h1>
<p>Talking of other countries: we need to remember that the past is another country – “they do things differently there”. We want to judge previous generations by today’s standards, because it is ‘obvious’ that today’s assumptions and expectations are morally correct.</p>
<p>I recently watched the film ‘Harriet’, which portrays one part of the life of Harriet Tubman, the famous abolitionist. Harriet repeatedly risked her life to rescue slaves, taking them along the ‘underground railroad’. The cinema audience is fully on Harriet’s side when she says, “God don’t mean people to own people,” and it seems to us to be self-evidently true, but - in the context of her day - this was a strange and implausible claim.</p>
<p>At the time when the film was set, slavery had been a fact of life since before history began. Almost everywhere you had established laws, it was regulated, as other aspects of trade were regulated: in some places at some times, there were many slaves, at other places and times there seems to have been few or no slaves. When, occasionally, for a time, slavery had been prohibited, it was usually to protect the powerful - so, in Athens, Solon protected Athenian citizens from slavery, but most people living in Athens were not citizens and enjoyed no such protection.</p>
<p>At that point in history, some people had come to the conclusion that slavery as an institution was wrong, and in a few places this had been made law, but alongside the voices of the people advocating that slaves should be set free, you could hear the voices of the slave owners advocating that they should be free to do as they chose with their property, and the voices of the many investors in all the businesses which earned their profits (at least in part) from slavery. A great many people probably disliked slavery but believed it would be impossible to operate a successful modern economy without it, and many believed that the state should not prevent them from making money in whatever way they chose.</p>
<p>Our culture tends to assume that freedom is good, but you have to look at the details: freedom for <em>who </em>to do <em>what</em>, <em>when </em>and <em>how</em>? When someone says, “I want to be free,” we tend to applaud – but what if they are saying “I want to be free to own slaves”? Or “I want to be free to release toxic chemicals into my local river”?</p>
<p>When we talk about freedom, we generally think we know what we are talking about – it seems obvious that some freedoms are more important than others, and the important freedoms (the freedoms which we feel are obviously important) are mainly determined by our culture. So we should have some humility when judging the failings of other cultures in their understanding and implementation of freedom: it seems likely that, with the benefit of hindsight, people in the future will look at us today and be dismayed by the ways we deny and limit important freedoms.</p>
<h1>Freedom and Ability</h1>
<p>Are you free to do something if you are not able to do it? Depending on the context of the discussion and the assumptions being made, the answer may be ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Political parties may promise to deliver freedom from some kind of discrimination, by passing a law when they get into power – but if they pass the law, and people still discriminate, have they actually delivered the promised freedom?</p>
<p>The relationship between freedom and ability is complicated, because there are various kinds of ability. You may be able to do something because nothing is physically preventing you, because you are not being threatened, because the law permits it, because it is socially acceptable, or because it doesn’t conflict with promises or commitments you have made. And, conversely, you may not be able to do it for any of those reasons.</p>
<p>Are you free to break the speed limit or rob a bank? Depending on the type of ability you have in mind, the answer is obviously ‘no’ because the law says you can’t, or ‘yes’ because nothing is stopping you: you are free to do it, and the state is free to punish you for doing it – if they can catch you.</p>
<p>There is an old joke: a patient asks their surgeon, “Will I be able to play the piano after my operation?” “Of course,” says the surgeon. “That’s wonderful!” comes the reply, “I never could before.”</p>
<p>I am free to run a four-minute mile: it is legal and socially acceptable, but I’m not physically able to do it. I am free to walk naked down our high street: it is legal and I am physically able to do it, but it’s not socially acceptable. I am considered to be free, or not free, to do these things, depending on the context of the discussion and the kinds of freedom and ability we are considering.</p>
<h1>Freedom and Responsibility</h1>
<p>To recap: freedom is a difficult concept. You can’t have complete freedom, and you would not want it anyway: you want some freedoms to be restricted, so that you can enjoy other freedoms. Some freedoms should be restricted to avoid harm – to avoid harming other people, or avoid harming the planet. And some freedoms exist – or not – depending on the context of the discussion and the assumptions being made.</p>
<p>So talking about freedom, outside a specific context, is generally unhelpful. We need to talk about how to balance freedom in different areas: how free should the employer be to make as much profit as possible; how free should the employee be to earn a living wage and work in a safe environment?</p>
<p>The practical question is: how do we have useful conversations about these important questions? My suggestion is that we move away from talking about freedom, and focus more on the other side of the coin: responsibility.</p>
<p>Many people have noted that ‘with great power comes great responsibility’, but with all power – with all freedom – comes responsibility. My actions, and my freedoms, have an impact on others.</p>
<p>When we talk about freedom, our focus is on the actor: the person with (or the person seeking) freedom. But when we talk about responsibility, our focus is on the consequences, on the people and the environment being affected by this freedom.</p>
<p>‘Responsibility’ is another difficult word: it is not that we have to take responsibility for the people and places affected by the exercise of our freedom, but we should take responsibility for the effect we have on them. My choices about Fairtrade affect communities in the developing world; my choices about using plastic affect the global ecosystem.</p>
<p>I am not responsible for global warming – I did not cause it, and I am not capable of solving it; I am not even responsible for a large part of my contribution to global warming – there were no electric cars available on the market when I last bought one, and a hybrid was far beyond my price range; but I am responsible now for doing what I can to combat it.</p>
<p>My responsibility extends as far as the consequences of my actions and my inactions, both of which are an expression of my many freedoms. I am most responsible for those immediately affected by my choices, but I also share responsibility for the actions of my country – both the direct actions and the indirect: the unjust trade deals we helped to negotiate, the crippling economic policies we helped to enforce. Future generations will hold us responsible for how we used our freedom, so we may as well get used to considering these issues.</p>
<p>We are keen to talk about freedom, to explore and possibly extend the boundaries of what we are able to do, but from an ethical perspective all the talk of freedom needs to be balanced with an equal emphasis on the consequences – the likely consequences and the possible consequences – of using that freedom. We need to give equal weight to our responsibilities.</p>
<h1>Rights and Obligations</h1>
<p>One reason why we struggle with the concept of freedom, and the various tensions within the concept, lies in our insistence on considering matters from the individual perspective – our default position in the West. But, despite what some have claimed, there is such a thing as society – and it matters. A lot. We have other terminology available to us, terminology where the default perspective is that of the community: the language of rights and obligations – but that is the subject of another article.</p>
<p>[See also <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/freedom">Freedom</a>, <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/the-desire-for-freedom">The Desire for Freedom</a> and <a href="https://just-human.net/articles/rights-and-obligations">Rights and Obligations</a>]</p>
<p> </p></div>