Last Tuesday an intrepid bunch of us, disregarding the inclement weather, nestled in the Lower Red Lion (with a glass in our hand) to debate, 'What is Freedom?'
Below is a summary of our discussion. We started with:
A definition: Philosopher Isaiah Berlin (Two Concepts of Liberty,1958) identified two concepts of freedom: negative freedom and positive freedom. Negative freedom refers to the absence of constraints, like imprisonment or coercion - this is liberty. Positive freedom, on the other hand, is the power to act on your will. It's the freedom to do as you want and to choose who you want to be.
Can We Ever Be Truly Free?
Complete freedom is a complex question. Cultural norms, laws, and even our genes influence our choices. Finding a balance between individual freedom and the good of society is crucial. Philosopher Charles Taylor emphasizes this point by highlighting the connection between motivation and societal expectations- whatever you are free to do should not cause harm to others.
Free Will vs. Determinism
The concept of free will clashes with determinism, which argues that all our actions are predetermined by past events - so choice is a fallacy. Libertarianism holds that free will is the most intuitive explanation for human behaviour, as we like to believe we are free agents in control of our thoughts and actions. Determinism, on the other hand, points to mistaken notions of free will, citing areas like chaos theory, brain activity and quantum mechanics. These are governed by natural laws even if, at this point, we don't understand them.
Here's where the debate gets personally interesting: can we be morally responsible for actions that are ultimately predetermined (as David Hume argued)?
However, Compatibilism, championed by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and A.J. Ayer, suggests that intentionality remains key to morality, even under determinism - so no let out there for dastardly acts!
Freedom and the Good Life
Philosophers have explored the link between freedom and living a good life. Kant, influenced by Descartes' dualism, saw free will as a metaphysical concept. Hannah Arendt emphasized the gap between thought and action, while Jean-Paul Sartre believed freedom lies in taking responsibility for every action: Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
Balancing Individual Freedom with Societal Safety
The concept of freedom can create conflict. Imagine someone advocating violence against a specific group. Here, we see a clash between:
Individual Freedom: Their right to freedom of speech. This raised the controversy surrounding J.K. Rowling's 'transgender comments'.
Societal Safety: The potential threat of violence to the targeted group.
Finding a balance is key. Governments may restrict speech that directly incites violence or poses an imminent threat to public safety.
We came to no certain conclusions but recognised the types of conflicts that arise across various aspects of life:
Freedom of Religion vs. Public Health: A religious group may oppose vaccinations, but vaccinations are necessary to safeguard public health.
Property Rights vs. Environmental Protection: An individual may want to develop land unsustainably, but environmental regulations may be in place.
Individual Privacy vs. National Security: Government surveillance may infringe on privacy, but it can be crucial for national security.
The complex interplay between freedoms and societal needs suggests there are no easy solutions. Society must weigh competing interests to find a balance that protects both individual rights and the common good.
At the same time if freewill doesn't exist are we just part of The Truman Show or the more contemporary, The Matrix?
Here's to the next drink!
Comments