Absolute Freedom
August 11th, 2008 at 3:58 am (Human Relations)
People speak sometimes of freedom, as though there is an absolute type of freedom to desire. And that if anything stands in the way of that freedom, it is wrong.
But freedom is always curtailed. Life has limits, and there is no way to avoid them. I cannot flap my arms and fly. I cannot run through the streets in the middle of winter without clothing without freezing. I cannot attack people without provocation without suffering consequences. In all things, I am embedded in a society, in a world full of other people and physical laws, and I cannot change that.
So what is freedom? What is justifiable, and what is extreme constraint? Where is the line?
Constraints are part of life. We are part of a society, and have to behave as such. What matters is that the constraints we place on each other, as a society, are reasonable ones. Not everyone can be the best at something. Not everyone can be first in a race. But that doesn’t mean that everyone shouldn’t have a chance to compete fairly.
What is fair, then? That’s hard to say. It isn’t everyone being forced into equality. It isn’t removing distinctions between people. It’s celebrating and encouraging the best of each person, and finding a way to reward them for what they do. It’s recognizing that we all have to work and live together, and embracing those that do the lowest jobs, not just the highest.
What is freedom? It’s the ability to work towards what makes us the best people we can be and enriches the universe as best we can. It’s the ability to live without undue constraint, without forcing such constraint upon others. It is living in community. It is accepting what cannot bend, and living as best as we can within what will.
Freedom is important. We need the ability to choose between right and wrong, to choose for ourselves what kind of life we wish for and strive for. But freedom is not absolute. Simply enough.
Questions:
What are your constraints? Why?
What would you do if freedom was absolute? What makes that different?
In an optimal world, what would be acceptable constraints upon people?
Zedd said,
August 11, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Interesting comments. Spinoza defined freedom as “That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone.” Ethics, Dfn VII. Freedom would then be the exercise of our will that is limited only by the necessity of our own nature. Yet as you point out, freedom to exercise our will does not escape us from the consequences of our actions. Wonderful essay. While not a Wiccan, the rule of do what you want but harm none would be a good constraint.