Category: Freedom

Introduction

Liberty or freedom is arguably one of the most valuable things to man. Those without it may be willing to argue, fight or even lose their lives in pursuit of what they feel is so vitally important to their lives. In general when talk of liberty we mean the right to live our lives on our terms, not under the power of some external agent. That liberty is considered such a significant value is not called into question. The fact that it is thought to be so important to so many people however has meant that there has been a great deal of discussion on what exactly it is we mean by the term liberty, and under what conditions would we consider people to be free. Political philosophers have many theories in response to this and it is necessary to analyze some of the main arguments and concepts to get a clearer idea of how to be more precise about the idea of liberty.

It is possible to identify three main strands of thought on the meaning and nature of liberty, although we must recognize that there are variations of beliefs about the specifics within each classification. First there is what David Miller calls the Republican family. Here liberty is set within a political framework. A person is free when there are certain political arrangements which allow for people to be self governed and for them to play an active role in this governance. (Carter, 2007) Secondly, there is the liberal tradition which conceives of liberty as something people may possess when there is no interference or restraints place upon individuals. (Warburton, 2000) Here the government may play two roles. It may either act as a constraint on freedom if it acts to interfere with individuals too much or it may serve as a protector of freedom by ensuring that peoples liberties are not infringed upon.

As such, the emphasis is not on the type of political arrangements or government such as in the Republican tradition, but on the scope of government. Lastly, we have what we may call the Idealist view where the focus is more on the individual. It highlights the importance of internal forces which determine how an individual behaves as opposed to external or social arrangements. Freedom here is defined as when a person is autonomous. (Silier, 2005) By this it is meant that an individual must be following his authentic beliefs which require politics to ensure that people are encouraged to lead a lifestyle that results in rational and authentic or choice, or alternatively to discipline individuals to do so.

Main text

One of the main distinctions of liberty has been drawn by Isaiah Berlin. According to him we are able to think about liberty in two ways. Firstly we can look at liberty in the sense that there are no external obstacles in an individuals path that will prevent him from doing something. (Santoro, 2003) Alternatively we can say that freedom consists in an individual being able to control and decide what he does or wants. Most simply put, negative freedom is the freedom from, or in the absence of something, whereas positive freedom is freedom to do or be something.

Negative liberty sees political liberty existing in the area where an individual is able to act unobstructed by others. Coercion or the deliberate interference to the attainment of a goal by other human beings will render an individual unfree. As such, this conception of liberty would appear to fall under the umbrella of liberal views on what constitutes freedom. On such a view, what is important are external obstacles and as such it is the scope of the government that matters as well as the need for it to establish a minimum area of personal freedom. Individual choice here is seem to be very important and freedom is not present if a person feels like his choice is restricted by external barriers.

Berlins distinction between such negative theories and positive views of freedom was that positive theories focus on freedom to do or be something and raises the question of by whom people are ruled. (Carter, 2007) It is based upon the need for our decisions and choices to be based upon our own will rather than the imposed will of another and therefore would seem to belong to the idealist conception of liberty. The departure from negative theories lies in the concept of self mastery. This implies that people may have two selves or natures, with our higher nature which is associated with rationality and reason and our lower selves which is ruled by emotions.

However, if we have two selves this then means that we might be ruled by our lower or less rational self. This then would not be true self mastery as we may be held back by our irrational feelings or desires. One is free only when the higher self is in control. In addition, this idea of a true self may be extended to societal institutions which we are apart of. It may be claimed that we are only true free in the form of a collective will in the manner of Rousseaus social contract or more extreme Republican theories of liberty. (Warburton, 2000) The dangerous implications should be apparent. It could be claimed that a leader was more rational and therefore feel as if he should be able to coerce individuals in the name of a collective goal or the wishes of the higher self. It then could be said that their rational selves would not oppose what the rational leader was doing.

A despotic leader could then justify his actions by saying that it would not even be coercion in the first place as the real self would have willed it whether the individual realizes it or not. The notion of the rational self or self mastery would thus lead to an apparent jump from individual responsibility to an authoritarian state.

Therefore critics of positive theories of freedom argue that freedom must be defined to be a state where only external barriers are obstacles to an individuals liberty. F. A. Hayek also emphasizes the importance of the minimization of coercion for freedom. He attempts to clarify more clearly the constraints and coercion that may legitimately be restraints upon an individuals liberty. (Carter, 2007) Coercion is to apply only in the scope of men. An individual may be described as not being free only when he is interfered with by another mans action that consciously attempts to impose a foreign will on his own. Mere circumstance is not enough to qualify as a constraint to freedom.

Moreover the range of choice available to a person in irrelevant to freedom in this view as how much choice a person has is seen to be a different concept to if he may follow his own choice. (Silier, 2005) Poverty therefore can not be viewed an obstacle and therefore any claims for redistribution must be rejected. The only ground for such an action by the government is in the case where something as essential for life is held by a single agent which then can exercise coercive power which can limit freedom. In Hayeks view however, although the government may act in certain coercive ways but these laws will not be restrictive on liberty as these acts are can not be classified as an arbitrary will are predictable as in the case of taxes and as such people will be able to make their life choices taking this into account. (Santoro, 2003) As such it will not be the case that individuals are subject to the arbitrary will of another.

Negative theorists, who fear a slide into totalitarianism, appear to define freedom in a very strict sense of constraints being purely physical of external. In an effort to cut positive theories off at the stem they appear to embrace a very crude version of their theory. (Wempe, 2004) Liberals such as J S Mill however, while arguing vehemently for protection of the individual against outside interferences brought in the argument that this was required on the grounds that personal freedom was necessary if men were to develop all his faculties and lead a worthy life. (Warburton, 2000) The problem is that this seems to bring in positive ideas such as self mastery into the picture. Indeed this is the type of problem that Charles Taylor attempts to address. Here positive theories can be referred to as exercise-concepts in that under this concept, individuals exercise control over their own lives. By contrast, negative doctrines are opportunity-concepts where freedom is not a matter of what we do but what we can do. (Santoro, 2003) However, a modern view of why liberty is so valuable is that it allows self determination, which needs the individual himself to work out what his own good is.

What emerges therefore is the view that internal factors may also be a deciding factor in a persons liberty. Negative theory should not there be seen as pure opportunity concept. (Carter, 2007) If it is to be defendable in modern society there must be some degree of the exercise concept in that we must be exercising our freedom when it comes to internal constraints. Negative theories should therefore be supplemented with some aspects of positive theories. In trying to defend against any positive variations, negative theorists claim that there should be no discrimination of motivations as this is what can lead back to the possibility of authoritarian states. (Alford, 2005) However by taking this line, without any discrimination it may appear that state which restricts many trivial freedoms is less free than a state which may interfere with only one thing, but one which people feel is a significant or fundamental freedom. What has to be recognized therefore is that there are discriminations to be made, not only on actions but also on feelings as everyone is able to identify certain feelings or desires that they feel hold them and prevent them from being the person they want to be.

Capitalist society can be seen as a prime example of the negative view of freedom. The notion of private property is ingrained into capitalist theory. The state should act to protect this sphere of privacy. (Santoro, 2003) State incursion into our private property is seen as reduction in our liberty. G. A. Cohen argues that this conception of freedom overlooks an inherent lack of freedom that it brings along with it, or ignores one half of the effects on freedom. (Carter, 2007) It is important to note that while state interference with private property will be an interference with the owners freedom, in the same way when it prevents an outsider from using the private property, this should be seen as interfering with this persons freedom.

Reducing this private property element through a form of socialism may be able to increase freedom. The distribution of resources can therefore be seen to be relevant to liberty which is a contrast to Hayeks position. (Alford, 2005) One of the main charges against capitalist society is that which cannot be mutually owned such as means of production forces people (workers) to sell their labor. Workers therefore are individually free not to sell their labor by attempting to move up to non-proletarian positions but the limited number of such positions means as a class they are collectively unfree as they will not be able to move up a class if everyone is attempting to exercise their freedom to do so.

A major challenge to these theories of negative and positive concepts of is the argument that asks if there is a distinction at all. Gerald MacCallum argues that that there is no need to distinguish between negative and positive freedom and that freedom is just one basic concept. His definition of freedom takes the following form: X (an agent) is or is not free from Y (preventing conditions such as barriers or interferences) to do or not do, or become or not become Z (actions or character). (Santoro, 2003) Liberty is therefore a triadic function and statements about freedom can be formulated to show that it can fit into the above form. (Carter, 2007) The differences arise in disagreements about what counts as these variables. For example, for negative theorists, X would correspond to an individual but for theorist this individual can be seen as split into higher or lower selves. When freedom for an agent is spoken of, when if you take into account both external and internal barriers, there is always both freedom to do something and freedom from something. The distinction between them is therefore false according to him.

Conclusion

Therefore we can see that there are many arguments over the concept of liberty which fall under the overarching strands of thought. Liberty is such a complex subject that it is difficult to make a definite statement on what the correct concept of it should be or how many there are exactly. Personally, I feel most comfortable with the idea that there are negative and positive aspects to freedom and the fact the liberty may consist in both the opportunity to have it and the exercise of it, that they are not the same thing but that there may sometimes need to be a mingling of the two when u talk about liberty. It may be the case that these different traditions of thought are able to be reconciled with each other and are interrelated. It is possible to say that the liberal view of freedom requires the institutions set up by the republican conception, or that the idealist view of self determination requires the liberal notion of the absence of barriers for this to be realized. To have a proper concept of the idea of liberty therefore it is necessary to take into account all these views.

References

Alford, Fred. (2005) Rethinking Freedom: Why Freedom Has Lost Its Meaning and What Can Be Done to Save It. Palgrave Macmillan.

Carter Ian, Kramer Matthew & Steiner Hillel. (2007) Freedom: A Philosophical Anthology. Wiley-Blackwell.

Santoro, Emilio. (2003) Autonomy, Freedom and Rights: A Critique of Liberal Subjectivity. Springer.

Silier, Yildiz. (2005) Freedom: Political, Metaphysical, Negative, and Positive (Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Philosophy). Ashgate Publishing.

Warburton, Nigel. (2000) Freedom: An Introduction with Readings. Routledge.

Wempe, Ben. (2004) T.H. Greens Theory of Positive Freedom (British Idealist Studies). Imprint Academic.

Introduction

Political freedom despite its imminent acceptance and popularity among so-called democratic countries has remained subjective and dependent on leaders. This paper shall try to delineate Niccolo Machiavellis and John Lockes interpretation or ideological influence on political freedom.

Discussion

According to Niccolo Machiavelli, the greatest moral good is a virtuous and stable state so that actions even if cruel, if intended to protect the country are justified. Leaders or state defenders must do anything necessary to keep their power but Machiavelli strongly suggests that above all, the prince must not be hated. He proposed that a wise prince or leader establish himself on where he has control and not in that of others. However, he also wrote that It is best to be both feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved, (The Prince, Chapter __ ).

Although Machiavelli wrote the same subject matter in The Prince and The Discourses, these two differ totally in their entirety because they discuss and emphasize two different kinds of political systems. In The Prince, Machiavelli talked about and described power situations very well: from worldwide politics to business corporations to most settings where technological advancement, influence, and control exist.

He illustrated the rules of the game that has been utilized and always will exist for many situations involving selfish humans who are in constant competition for power. Machiavellis propositions cannot be easily categorized as good or bad because they are just describing a process. Machiavelli also stressed the need for a strong defense through sound laws and strong military forces.

Machiavellis the end justifies the means maxim is used to mean that a good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it. In Chapter 17, his it is better to be feared than loved line is found. In this chapter, he explains that It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. (Machiavelli, 1950).

This entails that a leader, although professing what may be perceived as merciful, faithful, humane, frank, and religious, need not be such. His wisdom made him suppose that reality is full of evil and that a good leader must be able to discern that who is sincere and who is vicious, but not having to be obvious about his discernment or thoughts. At most, he must be always perceived as good but ready to be utterly cruel to defend his crown.

In Chapter V, as being summed up, Machiavelli proposes militaristic conquer and conquest as he wrote in The Prince, When these things are remembered no one will marvel at the ease with which Alexander held the Empire of Asia, or at the difficulties which others have had to keep an acquisition, such as Pyrrhus and many more; this is not occasioned by the little or abundance of ability in the conqueror, but by the want of uniformity in the subject state.

The Discourses can be summarized with this line by Machiavelli (Chapter __) when he said that the multitude is wiser and more constant than a prince. In addition when he said that a corrupt and disorderly multitude can be spoken to by some worthy person and can easily be brought around to the right way, but a bad prince cannot be spoken to by anyone, and the only remedy for his case is cold steel, (Chapter __) portrays his serious and violent ways to end disputes but taking into consideration the citizenrys essential existence in a world where it is impossible for a group to politically survive without a keen leader.

In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke proposed the greatest harm one can do to the monarch and the people is to spread wrong notions about government, (Preface). Already, there is the presumption about Lockes respect for all humans as born equal with the same ability to reason for themselves, and because of this, the government should have limitations to ensure that people are free from the arbitrary will of another person, according to the laws of nature. Government is a social contract between the people in control, and the people who submit to it, (Second Treatise, Chapter __). The positive point of Lockes anti-authoritarianism is that he firmly adheres to using reason to try to grasp the truth. This, in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity.

In Chapter 1, Locke emphasized that political power to be a right to make laws  with the death penalty and consequently all lesser penalties  for regulating and preserving property, and to employ the force of the community in enforcing such laws and defending the commonwealth from external attack; all this being only for the public good.

Here, Lock asserted that political power entails the right to make laws backed by the threat of force. At this point, his idea parallels with Machiavelli about the need for force. Lockes belief that a right to hold political power by reference to ones ancestry is also the same as Machiavelli as always, there is the threat of the enemy, outside force, or usurpation, and in this instance, leadership becomes a fair game.

Choosing or selecting leaders must not be by birthrights since it would cause chaos and would escalate to civil disorder. Everyone is bestowed with reason and free will that can be used according to conscience. According to Locke (1690, Chapter 1), being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another. Ultimately, the basis of freedom rests on the peoples power of reasoning which is God-given.

Locke also emphasized that there are two distinct rights: (1) the right that everyone has, to punish the crime so as to restrain him and preventing such offenses in future; (2) the right that an injured party has to get reparation. (Second Treatise, Chapter 2). However, preceding on this is his proposal that It is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases because self-love will bias men in favor for themselves and their friends. And on the other side, hostility, passion, and revenge will lead them to punish others too severely. So nothing but confusion and disorder will follow, and that is why God has  as he certainly has  established government to restrain the partiality and violence of men. (Chapter 2).

Conclusion

Machiavellis and Lockes assertions on political freedom are parallel at some points but go the opposite way at other points. Both adhere to the necessity of freedom in all aspects, as it is the method of the way freedom is acquired. Machiavellis approaches to political freedom as something that should be acquired no matter what the cost made him different from Lockes as Locke believes that leadership is bested on the will of the people.

Machiavelli, however, may be perceived as the more reliable and consistent of the two for a strong leader, who may not necessarily be good. Leaders whom Machiavelli calls princes can use options that vary from peaceful to violent in order to address issues that are relevant to the maintenance of a government. His propositions border on a militaristic approach to get and maintain power (as a prince or leader) with shrewdness always at hand.

On the other hand, Lockes proposition is the soberer of the two as he certainly points out respect for life and will of even the subjects. His stand, however, could be subject to question as he subsequently debates on one proposition as when he posed that no one is allowed to question or control those who carry out his (the leader) wishes, and everyone has to put up with whatever he does, whether he is led b reason, mistake or passion. (Second Treatise, Chapter 2)

Therefore, between Locke and Machiavelli, Locke focuses on the subjects to uphold a leader while Machiavelli focuses on strong leadership to protect his subjects, as well as maintain leadership.

References

Locke, John, and Thomas Preston Peardon. (1952). The Second Treatise of Government. New York: Liberal Arts Press.

Machiavelli, Niccolo (1950). The Prince and the Discourses. New York: Modern Library. Web.

Mansfield, Harvey (2001) New Modes and Orders, A study of the Discouses on Livy. University of Chicago.

Freedom is generally defined as removal from physical restraint such as slavery, oppression, or detention. It is synonymous with rights and free choice/will as well as lack of modesty/reserve and assertion of boldness or frankness. With a vast array of interpretations and definitions assigned to it, freedom can be ambiguous. Suffice to say, freedom should encompass emancipation of not just the body, but the mind, soul, and spirit as well. Transcending ambiguity, true freedom should necessitate moral responsibility, adhere to Truth, and be non-repressive as well as self-respectful.

The thoughts of a person do not go unseen for their thoughts are soon revealed in the substance of their deeds. Thoughts constitute a persons morals  principles of conduct or a system of beliefs which they live by or are governed accordingly. A persons morals distinguish their character. A thought was at the core Weapons of Mass Destruction, War on Terror, Khmer Rouge, Darfur genocide, the Holocaust, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, and a slew of other human atrocities  all exemplary of freedom without moral responsibility. Moral responsibility eradicates inventions or innovations that destroy the root or basis of life

And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free (Scofield Reference Bible). At the core of this new freedom, paradigm should be truth rooted in Gods consciousness  not from the viewpoint of religious sectarianism, dogmas, and personalities. God represents that which is true and right. Truth is the correct knowledge and understanding of reality. That which creates, sustains, and maintains life in harmony with the natural cycles of this planet, doing no harm to the ecology or people of the Earth- is right. These definitions of Godliness, Truth, and Rightness often seem esoteric, but if they can be defined then they are knowable and thus attainable as the Scripture asserts.

An individual has to follow the path they feel is right for them and respect for their right to choose their path is what makes freedom non-repressive. Imposition of will and lack of respect for this right further perpetuates the premise one mans heaven is another mans hell. The world consists of countless governments and imposed laws  indicative in essence of an imbalanced, repressed society. A governmental structure is obligated to protect its citizens from abuse and unjust persecution. Congruent with this is the individuals responsibility to ensure that their rights and freedoms do not harm their fellow citizens and society as a whole

Moral responsibility, truth, love/self-respect, and non-repressive epitomize true freedom. The physical world is a mirror of the human mind/thought. The plethora of ills plaguing the planet and the human family today is the result of a world morally and righteously void due to rapacious materialism and technological prowess and a failure to implement moral principles such as freedom beyond mere tokenism and rhetoric. The ramifications and repercussions are evident  rampant war and violence, deception (doublespeak), fraud, crime, torture, sexual abuse, and lasciviousness, etc; which has become normalized. If freedom is synonymous with rights, then should encompass the right not to be murdered, defrauded or stolen from, abused, lied on/to, or unjustly persecuted by either individuals or the state. Freedom will only be an allusion without the aforementioned components as its base.

Bibliography

Scofield, C.I. Reverend, Editor. The Scofield Study Bible. Oxford University Press: New York, 1917.

Not guilty

Robert Blatchford in his essay Not Guilty maintains that the existence or nonexistence of a free choice is the point that free will discussion triggers. He acknowledged that people make choices but wondered the motive behind those choices. In his arguments, he emphasized that the will to choose is not free rather it is governed by both heredity and environment.

His appeal is on behalf of not just the unsuccessful and downtrodden but of the criminal and degraded classes and a condemnation of what passes for justice, divine and human. He defended his subjects on the ground that they are helpless casualties of heredity and environment, whose bully instincts have further been bullied by the atrocious circumstances under which they have been raised.

Robert Blatchford used several examples to support his arguments. The most notable example was a rabbit stopping on the path of a marksman at target practice. He argued that if the marksman was a sportsman, he would shoot the rabbit but a humanitarian would rather not shoot. The reason the two make different choices is their conscious with which they were born with or inherited and what they have learnt in life.

Another similar example is about alcoholism. He argued that the one inclined to alcoholism does not choose to drink but the mind repeats and acts through instinct. Therefore, he denies the right of the society to denounce and punish those who could be the outcomes of such circumstances. Man can make choices but the choices are governed by heredity and environment or what has been learnt and conscious that he was born with rather than divine power or the willingness to choose.

Apparently, determinism argued by Robert Blatchford is an excuse for the bad man. It in fact inflicts upon the ethics to wittiness that of reconciling the strict determination of every occurrence with the moral demand that it shall, nonetheless be possible to shatter the bondage of circumstance in order to choose the right. Therefore, Blatchfords arguments clearly have abundant plausibility and precedents.

The scene of human recklessness, misery and crime is so harrowing that only few intellectuals can tolerate to criticize and examine ideas that promise an extensive alleviation of the burden of human beings. The main source of human suffering is not social, that means it is neither an outcome of his imperfect control of his nature nor of the imperfect development of his social empathies and the resulting inhumanity.

Rather, it stems from the inadequate control of the forces of nature and can be eliminated by the steady growth of the knowledge. In making allowances for the casualties of unfavorable circumstances, we need to seek support and not to give in to their powers of resistance. Therefore, we should preach freedom rather than fatalism and effort instead of submission.

Karma and freedom

According to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, freedom of will is that which emerges when an individual does not surrender to the past karmas, but chooses to mould the future in his own way rather than suffering from the past. To him, self determination is not a freedom because our actions are controlled by the law.

These actions make us be associated with creative power which is proportional to its insistence and sincerity. The principle of karma asserts that an individual will get return depending on the energy invested in it. Nature per se responds to the demands of self and thus an individual has to utilize his whole nature. Freedom is connected to the past and is restricted or controlled by past karmas.

Although the self is bound to determinism, it can influence past to certain level and turn it to a new future. Life is not restricted but a growth which is defined as undetermined in a measure. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan takes past karmas as measure and growth is defined as undetermined because it relies on the choice of an individual. This circumstance is well explained with the help of a simile of playing cards. In a game of bridge, the cards are given to players rather than the players selecting them.

The cards are drawn from the past karma but players are free to make calls as they think fit. They are only limited by the rules of the game. They are freer when the game begins than later when it has developed and the choices become limited. But there is always a choice until the game ends. It can then be concluded that individuals have freedom of choice but not total freedom.

However, it can also be argued that individuals can be free from the past and do not need to subjugate it. This can be explained through the metaphor of a working employee. Initially, the employee choices are limited due to inexperience and are completely bound to this limitation.

But as he gains more experience, he or she becomes freer to choose whatever task to complete. Indeed, when there are prospects for future training and development his or her choices become unlimited irrespective of the self nature. In this case, the freedom to choose depends on the future rather than past karma. It can then be concluded that individuals can have absolute freedom if they want to.

Human freedom has been a constantly discussed subject over the last century. In schools, students are taught that freedom is one of lifes pillars. It is for this reason that freedom has been redefined a number of times by various contributors. One of the people who have forwarded their own definition of freedom is French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. In his book Being and Nothingness, Sartre expresses his views on what consists of human freedom and lays down the frameworks of his definition.

In a summary definition Sartre divides his philosophy into two, for-itself and the in-itself. The for-itself is simply the definition that takes into account the conscious part of human beings. The in-itself takes into consideration the non-conscious part of human beings. According to Sartre, even though these two divisions seem separate, they are linked in the sense that the for-itself is just a part of the in-itself.

Sartre continues to explain that freedom is the central factor in human beings and it is permanently connected to the for-itself or consciousness. Accordingly, even if it seems like an unconventional idea, human beings are always free. The notion that there are scenarios in which this freedom can fail to be exercised is therefore untrue. In the end, Sartres definition of freedom is that it is the mode of being conscious. This freedom is the one that provides a new manner of looking at things.

For Sartres philosophy to be understood, its foundation has to be explained. The foundation of this theory is the existence of the conscious and the non-conscious. Sartre describes consciousness as the state of being conscious of something (Sartre 214). Therefore, consciousness can only exist in relation to something that makes one conscious.

It is then easy to question how consciousness can exist if it is by itself nothing. To answer this, Sartre put forward a scenario in which someone sees a table but is instead conscious of his/her own aura. This means just by being in existence and being conscious of things around us, there is a consciousness already.

Freedom as defined by Sartre has played a major role in the day-to-day lives of human beings. In his philosophical view, through freedom, we continually choose our goal, or project, and it is this choice that controls the way that we interpret the objects that we deal with in everyday life (Sartre 626). Our consciousness is always evaluating projects and choices in relation to the end result. For instance, if someone wanted to climb a rock wall and another one wanted to photograph it.

The climber would focus more on the steepness while the photographer would be concerned with the walls color and texture. The freedom of human beings is realized only in relation to the end project chosen by the conscious elements. Therefore, as human beings we do not have any knowledge of how much our freedom contributes to our final decisions. The only thing that is clear is that freedom played a part.

This brings up another important philosophical question. The question is just how much responsibility human beings have in shaping their lives, and the possibility of oppressing people who already have freedom. Sartres model of freedom excludes the existence of a standard by which human beings can measure themselves.

This is because such a standard would make it possible for them to fail in life. According to Sartre, there are no fixed measures of success or failure. For instance, if an alcoholic man sits down and thinks about the way he is not living up to his potential, he is simply not exercising his freedom.

This is because the man can reposition this freedom in a manner that aligns with his current situation. There is no put-down standard that specifies that he should be a successful businessman or realtor. The notion that he is not living up to his potential is just a belief he holds. If he was to exercise his freedom, he can be comfortable with his life as an alcoholic. Sartres description of freedom exempts an individual from responsibility and accountability from his/her actions.

This line of thinking can be instrumental in explaining oppression. Oppression is described as a scenario in which an individual is unable to exercise his/her freedom. An oppressed person cannot speak freely or even escape. According to Sartre, such a state does not have any effect on someones freedom. People are fundamentally free in spite of their situation. In order to affect a persons freedom, you have to affect his existence, which is tantamount to killing him/her (Sartre 346).

Sartres explanation of freedom seems to raise a few controversies. For a start, he seems to assert that human beings are not responsible for their actions. His definition of freedom as the ability to wish for something someone wants also raises questions. However, the freedom Sartre is defining seems to be existential freedom. Not all types of freedoms are covered in this case. His definition also allows his audience to understand that the way one sees things presently is directly related to how someone views the future.

Sartre on Human Character

Character is made up of several traits that a particular person possesses. Traits on the other hand are a persons tendencies to feel and behave in a certain way. Examples of character traits are honesty and bravery.

The tendencies to act in an honest manner or act bravely in times of danger are some traits that can be found in one person. A collection of traits makes up a character. Other such traits include hating being alone or having stage fright. To most people traits are not an individuals choice. Therefore, if an individual is talkative, it is not his choice to be talkative.

In this same way, if an in individual has stage fright it is not because he/she chose to have it. This is why even individuals are not apologetic about their traits. Most philosophers including Aristotle agree that traits cannot be changed. However, Jean-Paul Sartre disagrees with this notion. According to him, a persons traits are as a result of the projects he/she has been involved in when trying to fit into his/her environment. Therefore, Sartres view is that a particular environment can change a persons traits.

In his book Being and Nothingness, Sartre had defined character traits as dispositions that make one act in a certain manner. However, it was his understanding that these traits cannot influence someones behavior. His emphasis is on the difference between inclination and determination of behaviors. Traits incline an individual towards some actions but cannot determine them. This is one of the claims forwarded by Sartre in his theory of freedom.

Later on Sartre forwarded another theory that like the first one covers human behavior. This theory is often referred to as Sartres theory of character. Before delving into this theory, it is important to understand how Sartre views the role of character traits. When explaining this theory, Sartre uses two terms, mobile and motif. Mobile refers to a fact about an agent that can be attributed to a specific action.

Motif on the other hand refers to a fact about the environment of an agent that can be referenced when explaining an action. For instance, to explain why I washed the car one can use a motif and say that the car was dirty or it appeared so to me. Alternatively, one can employ a mobile and say that I just wanted the car to be clean. The motif in this case is a rationalization of an action while a mobile just explains the desires that make one act in a certain way.

Using the terminologies above, Sartre explains that all actions can be explained in terms of a motif or a mobile. Using this line of thinking, Sartre explains that an individuals traits are what he/she projects to the rest of the world. This projection is what shapes expectations from the rest of the world for an individual to act in a certain manner. It is therefore safe to declare that traits are not dependent actions that make up a person, but rather an organization of actions influenced by environmental and day-to-day encounters.

This organization reflects individuals aims. For instance, an individual can act bravely in order to ensure survival. This means that what makes the individual organized in a brave manner is because the environment he/she is in requires it. For Sartre, character traits are not elements that cannot be changed through choice. It is the environment and circumstances that make it seem so.

Sartres theory of character and character traits has attracted a lot of commentary over the years. There are those who see some good points in it and there are those who dismiss it in its entirety. In my view, Sartres theory does not hold any water. It is a theory that lacks substantive claims and follow-ups. The first apparent weakness in this theory is that it is a philosophical theory that incorporates metaphysics. Some of these metaphysics seem a bit overstretched. The other weakness is in the way Sartre dismisses the role of responsibility in shaping of a persons character. This theory is well explained in paper but its practical application makes little to no sense.

In explaining his theory of freedom, Sartre says, existence precedes essence. When interpreted, this view produces two outrageous explanations. The first is that an individual does not have a behavior-determining essence. The second is that human nature is non-existent.

Both of these interpretations point towards a misplaced philosophy. There was also no subsequent work on Sartres philosophy that sought to justify these views. According to Sartre, one can change his/her character traits as he/she chooses new projects in life. The question is what agent drives a person to change these projects. This is not addressed in Sartres work and it nullifies this claim.

Work Cited

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness, Washington D.C: Washington Square Press, 1984. Print.

Boredom

Ever been in a conference room or a classroom and found yourself fantasizing or your attention wandering? Alternatively, have you discovered that suddenly your work is not all that enticing and arousing as was the case during the first week? Has your life suddenly become routine and monotonous leading to a lack of desire to go on living? (MacDonald & Holland 1105).

If the answer to the above questions is yes, then it is most likely that you are or have been suffering from boredom. Boredom is a condition characterized by low levels of arousal as well as wandering attention and is normally a result of the regular performance of monotonous routines (Emad 25). In this case, an individual feels empty and is in a state close to anxiety; a state of melancholy or depression (Emad 27). As a result, the individual becomes detached from reality and feels dissatisfied in his/her current position (Leslie 120). Children too, have been victims of boredom (Arp 22).

Boredom and idleness are more or less the same but still differ in a way. While boredom is a condition brought about by the performance of an activity routinely or being stuck in a situation, idleness, on the other hand, is a condition whereby an individual has absolutely nothing to do (Arp 20). Boredom has a source of arousal while idleness does not have a source of arousal (Arp 21).

Research findings have observed that boredom is all in the mind (Leslie 122). It is linked to both personality traits and emotional factors whereby some individuals are less likely to be bored as compared to others (MacDonald & Holland 1100). The Western culture defines boredom as having nothing to do but as earlier mentioned, having nothing to do applies to being idle (Emad 42). To be more specific, the culture ought to define boredom as having nothing else or nothing new to do, since it occurs as a result of monotony, or the performance of monotonous tasks (Arp 25).

The level of attention plays a very crucial role in boredom (Emad 60). Individuals who have incompetence at understanding their feelings as well as those who become preoccupied with their frame of mind are more easily bored. They are thus susceptible to illnesses such as drug abuse and addiction as well as depression (Frankfurt 100). Performance at work and school drastically drops and the individuals become socially uncomfortable. In a factory setting, for instance, employees tend to perform monotonous tasks in their respective assigned departments, day in day out, and though some may not get bored by the repetition of the tasks, others continue maintaining a depressed attitude and complain bitterly of the monotony (MacDonald & Holland 1110).

According to recent research, it has been observed that men generally tend to become more bored than women (Leslie 135). As a result, there are high numbers of men with drug addiction and abuse problems than women (Leslie 136). On the other hand, women tend to suffer more from depression as compared to men (Leslie 132). Thus, boredom can here be defined as a situation where the mind has too much excitement and an individual has the urge to do something but has difficulty in focusing the energy (Arp 37).

Boredom is both a social and cultural problem affecting life in general, from relationships to church life (MacDonald & Holland 1112). People complain of being bored with their partners at work or in marriage, bored with work and school as well as bored with church and the whole concept of heaven and going there (MacDonald & Holland 1113). Religion considers boredom as one of the seven deadly sins (Arp 56). In the entertainment industry, the media portrays a state of boredom as the norm. This means that societys mind is being polluted by the notion that their lives are naturally and essentially meaningless. Boredom is hence the defining condition of a human race exceptionally in danger of losing its ability to grasp the mystery of its being (Emad 63).

Boredom is also the inability to sit still, rest or settle at any one time (Emad 64). In most cases, it can be linked to problems with attention (Frankfurt 110). For instance, an experiment was carried out in 1989 by psychologists James Laird and Robin Damrad-Frye of Clark University, to support a given hypothesis saying that the essential behavior component of boredom is the struggle to maintain attention (Frankfurt 111). Participants were required to listen to a comprehension having a low-level distraction such as a quiet television switched on in the next room (Frankfurt 112). Since they were not aware of what caused the distraction, they justified their inattention by describing it as boring (Frankfurt 114). The television set was then switched to blare and the participants found it utterly impossible to concentrate. However, when the television was switched off, some participants commented that the listening comprehension exercise was stimulating (Frankfurt 114).

Boredom can also be referred to as a state of becoming disengaged from the world (MacDonald & Holland 1114). There are different types of boredom for example, in cases whereby individuals abandon important life goals as a result of practical concerns or other pressures may experience boredom known as existential boredom (Emad 61). Then there is situational boredom which is caused by lack of or presence of something in a situation (Emad 69). For instance, it can be as a result of either waiting for a flight in an airport or listening to a boring conference or classroom lecture. Another type of boredom is repetitive boredom, which is a result of a task becoming boring due to repetition (Frankfurt 114). The task might be fun but repetition causes it to become boring (Frankfurt 114).

In North America for example, surveys have shown that half of the population are either permanently or temporarily bored, despite being flooded with fun industries (Arp 69). The Christian society has not been left behind in that most teenagers who happen to attend Anglican or Baptist church services tend to term them as boring as compared to services of Redeemed and Deliverance Churches (MacDonald & Holland 1115).

The increase in technology and the introduction of the information society has not eased the problem of boredom at work. Challenging careers also do not guarantee freedom from boredom (Emad 58). You will find that when Executives and Managers of big corporations finally reach the top, there is nothing else left for them to do and they end up wondering if their career was worth the effort in the first place (Emad 65).

People try to escape from boredom by engaging in drugs, alcohol as well as sex (Leslie 160). Boredom is the absence of a challenge and individuals experiencing boredom ought to find alternatives, for instance, visiting family or friends (Leslie 161). Boredom means one has free time and does not know what to do with it (Arp 75). Taking walks or exercising, visiting zoos or parks as well as reading books, and acquiring knowledge on nature and the universe as a whole are just but a few alternatives of killing boredom (Frankfurt 115).

Once boredom sets in, it is good to take note of what exactly consists of feelings and forms one terms as boring, both physically, emotionally as well as mentally (Leslie 174). By just noticing what manner it comes in and allowing it to pass without trying to do anything, one will have performed the most powerful and direct way of transforming boredom (Arp 149).

Freedom

Freedom is a condition whereby individual experiences minimal restrictions to doing any activity (Frankfurt 119). It is self-determinants (Frankfurt 120). A person can acquire freedom from different issues, for instance, freedom from unemployment, freedom from poverty and hunger as well as freedom from illiteracy (Arp 41). A persons freedom can be determined by various factors, for instance, the government and the industrial sectors. The government determines the freedom of democracy and freedom from taxes while the industrial sectors determine freedom to breathe clean and fresh air (Frankfurt 122).

Freedom is getting to do what one wants as long as it does not interfere with the equal rights of others to do likewise (Leslie 172). It can be categorized into three kinds namely, Freedom from the Government, Freedom from the Boss, and Freedom from Everyone Else (Leslie 181). Freedom from the Government is whereby citizens have a right to choose whether or not to pay taxes which end up funding welfares (Arp 66). While working, people are in essence selling their time into servitude while taking orders from their supervisors (Arp 101). Freedom from the Boss is a state of not being under the authority of an employer and getting to do what one wants (Frankfurt 117).

Lastly, Freedom from Everyone Else is a state of being alone with nature and without any access to modern technology, for instance, going to a cabin upcountry where there is no presence of humanity or technology insight (MacDonald & Holland 1114). Although development has its many advantages, many individuals find it necessary to practically get away from it all to experience complete freedom (MacDonald & Holland 1114).

It has been observed that different freedoms clash with each other, that is, what can be termed as freedom for one individual might often be a restriction to another individual (Arp 99). It is virtually impossible to acquire or achieve perfect and total freedom (Arp 104). Freedom can either be positive or negative (Frankfurt 121). In a case whereby an employer manipulates his/her employees by either giving them low wages, making them work longer hours without extra pay, or makes them work in a hostile environment, then it can be said that negative freedom is being experienced by employees (Frankfurt 126).

Negative freedom can also be seen in such cases as where people stock their stands with pornographic materials in the name of freedom of speech, or in those who worship the Devil in the name of freedom of worship as well as those who murder babies who are not yet even born, in the name of freedom to abort (MacDonald & Holland 1118).

On the other hand, an example of positive freedom can be whereby an employer gives his/her employees freedom to think of and come up with new ideas for projects thus leading to improvement and development of the organization (Leslie 166). This freedom, positive or negative is dependent on both place and time (Arp 104). It is worth noting that the freedom this generation is currently enjoying did not come about just because people saw it fit to have it. Blood was shed by previous generations while fighting for it because they highly valued freedom (Arp 105).

Sense of freedom can be experienced in different ways. When a small baby bangs his/her toy on your polished furniture, you allow him/her since you would not want to intrude on his/her freedom or restrain his/her creativity (Leslie 170). A husband prefers going where he wants, whenever he wants and with whomever, he wants for him to experience a sense of freedom. An 18-year-old teenager arrives home in the wee hours of the morning without his/her parents knowledge of where he/she has been and with whom. If he/she is questioned on his whereabouts, he/she feels that his/her sense of freedom has been interfered with and might threaten to walk out of the house and disappear (Frankfurt 128).

The earth that we live in can be equated to a training school for us (MacDonald & Holland 1104). In schools, there is normally no complete freedom but a set of rules and disciplines (MacDonald & Holland 1111). Thus, human beings were never meant to enjoy complete freedom. This can be best illustrated by the story of the Prodigal Son in the Bible (Luke 15:11-32). The Prodigal Son wanted his freedom and approached his father demanding his share of wealth (v. 12). As the story goes, the son went out to a far country and spent all his given wealth on worldly pleasures (v. 13-14). He gradually became broke and poor and ended up feeding with swine on a certain farm (v.15). Fortunately, he came to his senses and went back home to ask for forgiveness from his father and was warmly welcomed back and given a feast (v. 17-32).

We, as human beings have a desire to be forgiven and set free from all our iniquities which include lustful desires, malice, envy, jealousy as well as hatred and often beseech God, through prayer, to grant us freedom from them (MacDonald & Holland 1112).

A recent form of freedom has been introduced to the United States Constitution and that is Academic freedom, derived from the First Amendment (Frankfurt 127). This is a concept that originated from Germany in the 1850s where the Prussian Constitution of 1850 announced that science, as well as its teaching, was going to be free (Arp 103). Academic freedom is categorized into two groups namely Individual Academic freedom and Institutional Academic Freedom (Frankfurt 115 ).

Individual academic freedom is that freedom which grants protection to an individual professor while Institutional academic freedom is that which grants freedom to universities and protects them from interference by the government. Unlike Individual academic freedom, Institutional academic freedom does not offer protection to individual professors in case of dismissal (Emad 68).

Boredom as related to Freedom

In a meaningless and empty lifestyle, freedom often leads to boredom (Emad 71). In addition, in a society where its individuals are unproductive, boredom is evident (Emad 71). It is usually a sign that individuals of that society are unable to cater for themselves and their needs, despite there being adequate or plenty of time to do so (Leslie 173).

Traditional settings usually link boredom to a lack of freedom (Leslie 180). With little choice on how to make use of their time, some students may view school as boring, uninteresting, and the subjects too dry; too difficult, or too easy. There is also that student who feels that school does not fit their disposition, learning styles, and/or their rhythms (Arp 110). These, mostly prefer being active to sitting at desks, and thus, they always act out, under-achieve, or even become problematic to the management. Another clique may view schoolwork as being below their scope and they may either underachieve or score highly due to the schooling system being too easy for them (Arp 112).

Lack of knowledge on how to use freedom in meaningful and constructive ways creates obstacles. As a result, this leads to boredom due to the availability of time with nothing to do (Arp 118). Here, freedom leads to a feeling of emptiness and one sees no sense in doing things, or rather, in performing activities (MacDonald & Holland 1117).

Different Views of Freedom

Different people have different views of freedom. Some think that freedom is being able to do what you want to do as long as it is within the law while some think that freedom is whereby one is free to do what one wishes, good or bad (Frankfurt 130). Some still have the notion that for instance, in a country like Canada, to be free or to experience freedom, one has to wake up early to avoid others who influence their freedom (Arp 142). On the contrary, some believe that a person choosing to live in a free country acquires freedom (Emad 76).

In Christianity, the Gospel or the Bible in itself contains the message of freedom and liberation (Arp 138). For Christians, freedom is thus the ability to progress without restrictions on this earth that God put us. It is not therefore in agreement with limitation and the law, since it does not allow one to do as he/she pleases (Arp 143). In the Gospel according to John 3:16, God so loved the world (human beings) that He offered His only begotten Son as a living sacrifice, that whoever would believe in Him (His Son) would not die but have eternal life. Christians consider eternal life as the ultimate freedom for the human soul.

Muslims, on the other hand, believe that their sole purpose of being here on earth is not for punishment but to be tested to see if the divine bestowment is being used as per the requirements of the holy Quran (vs. 126). Prophet Muhammad was given instructions not to force or put pressure on people to accept the message of freedom (Quran 16:125-128).

Conclusion

Boredom is a state of doing something that with time becomes monotonous and is no longer fun while freedom is the ability to do what one wishes as long as it does not interfere with anothers life or right to privacy. Some individuals believe that boredom is freedom while others believe that freedom, to some extent, leads to boredom.

Boredom can be curbed in various ways, for instance, a person might try finding new activities to do such as visiting or taking walks. By doing so, freedom is finally experienced and the individual gets to enjoy life and yearns to continue living.

References

Arp, Kristana. The Bonds of Freedom. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2001.

Emad, Parvis. Boredom as Limit and Disposition. Heidegger Studies, Volume 1. 1985.63-78.

Frankfurt, Harry G. Concerning the Freedom and Limits of the Will. 1989. pp. 119-130.

Heidegger, Martin. A Kierkegaard Anthology. Edited by Robert Bretall. New York: Modern Library. Sixth Edition. 2001.

Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings. Edited by David Farrell Krell. Harper Collins Publishers. 1976. pp. 50-400.

MacDonald, D. A., & Holland, D. Spirituality and boredom proneness. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(6), 1113-1119. 2002.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Portable Nietzsche. Translated and edited by Walter Kaufman. New York: Penguin. 1982.

Sartre, Jean Paul. The Philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre. Edited by Robert Denoon Cumming. First Edition. New York: Random House. 1965.

St. Thomas Aquinas. The Summa Theologica. Second and Revised Edition. 1920.

The Bible. The Gideons International. Thomas Nelson, Inc. Copyright 1982.

Thiele, Leslie Paul. Nature and Freedom: A Heideggerian Critique of Biocentric and Sociocentric Environmentalism. Environmental Ethics 17:171-90. 1995.

Hegels ideas on action, morality, ethics and freedom are still applicable in the contemporary society and it is possible to think of a variety of examples to illustrate Hegels standpoint. However, some of his viewpoints should be questioned. For instance, Hegels standpoint on the ethical society is too generalized.

Hegel argues that a society develops certain sets of duties which correspond to universal morals. Nonetheless, the duties and the very morality developed in one society can significantly differ from the norms accepted in another society, so it is impossible to state that ethical norms of a society correspond to the universal norms.

According to Hegel, ethical society is the society where people follow universal moral norms which have been developed throughout centuries (or decades) in this society. However, there have been far too many examples of societies which were based on moral norms that could be questioned. Nazi Germany can be one of such examples as it was moral to humiliate (and even persecute) people who pertained to other ethnic groups.

Admittedly, this conduct can hardly be regarded as the one corresponding to the universal morality. Soviet Union is another good example as the interests of the country were primary and people were often killed and persecuted for the sake of the development of the established order. Importantly, people who lived in those countries followed certain ethical norms accepted in the society, so those societies could have been called ethical societies (according to Hegels concepts).

One of the major arguments of the philosopher is that duty should have certain content. Those societies developed duties which had content, but the trajectories of the morality were quite specific. Therefore, Hegels ideas concerning the essence of the duty are also rather questionable.

Hegel could have said that such cases had to be regarded as some particular cases which are exceptions. The philosopher could have added that even those societies had a variety of norms which corresponded to the concept of the universal morality.

Nevertheless, these arguments are rather inconsistent as these are not the only examples. In fact, almost every society can have some traditions which contradict the universal morality. These contradictions are often manifested in the attitude towards other nations, the so-called the other.

As for the other Hegels possible argument, it is necessary to state that availability of some ethical norms do not justify existence of traditions and norms which contradict the concept of the universal morality. Thus, a society, where people cherish lives and property of their compatriots and are supportive in every situation, can be hostile to newcomers. People living in this society can believe that murder of other groups can be justified because the latter are unethical. Admittedly, such a society cannot be regarded as an ethical one.

On balance, it is possible to state that Hegels concept of an ethical society is rather inconsistent and too generalized. The philosopher states that societies tend to develop traditions which correspond to the universal moral norms.

These societies can be regarded as ethical. However, these societies can hardly be found in reality as there are some ethical as well as unethical norms. Admittedly, if all people followed universal ethical norms, it would be possible to create an ethical society. Unfortunately, many people fail to follow major ethical norms. This leads to development of societies where injustice, violence and crime reign.

The concept of freedom has been addressed from all possible angles and regarding various tenets. Freedom among human beings is responsible for the current shape of various institutions including religion and politics. Lack of freedom is also attributed to most of the inconsistencies that apply to the current society. Consequently, freedom is a contentious subject that on some occasions empowers human beings and on other times gets in the way of their desires. Jean-Paul Sartres views on freedom lean on his existential philosophy. Sartres philosophy borrows on his new vision of consciousness, and by answering the question of the being in a new way, he provides a different understanding of our existence in this world (Caws 45).

At a glance, Sartres philosophy attributes human freedom to the conscious aspect of humanity (the for-itself) and the non-conscious state (the in-itself). Consequently, Sartre claims that the meeting point of these two aspects of a human being is the genesis of freedom. Sartre was of the view that human beings are essentially free and they are responsible for the dynamics of their guiding consciousness and the resulting actions. Nevertheless, Sartre was of the view that with total freedom comes total responsibility (Gutting 67). Responsibility about freedom makes individuals responsible for all their decisions including their choice to be non-committal. This essay explains Jean-Paul Sartres understanding of human freedom and his concept of responsibility. The paper also offers a reflection of Sartres concept of freedom and responsibility and its suitability in the modern context.

According to Sartre, freedom, and responsibility go hand in hand. Consequently, human beings are always free and consequently responsible for their actions and accompanying individual circumstances. This worldview is subject to analysis and scrutiny from several quarters. To sustain his argument, Sartre uses the example of individuals who are involved in a war. According to the philosopher, the general outlook when soldiers are involved in a war is that they have no freedom of choice when it comes to individual circumstances. However, the true scenario is that anyone who is involved in a war can run away or commit suicide as a choice to protest his/her scenario and thereby exercise his/her freedom.

On the other hand, individuals only fight in a war because they believe that fighting provides the option that represents their best interests. Sartres main argument is that individuals always choose freely and engage in activities that represent their best interests. The concept of freedom as expressed by Sartre negates the possibility that an individuals free will can be overrun. The overall sentiment through Sartres example of war and freedom is that each person is an absolute choice of self from the standpoint of a world of knowledge and of techniques which this choice both assumes and illumines; each person is an absolute upsurge at an absolute date and is perfectly unthinkable at another date (Solomon 253). Consequently, there is no viable reason that human beings can give for foregoing their choice to exercise freedom.

When it comes to responsibility, Sartre is of the view that human being is responsible for everything that happens in their lives except the fact that they are responsible for everything (Solomon 255). The view that human beings have been figuratively abandoned in this world should only serve as a motivation for them to pursue freedom. This line of argument also bears the sentiment that human beings might not be in control of their decision to be in the world but they have the means to control their existence. Although this outlook provides a positive overview of human existence, it is also generalized to some extent. For instance, Sartres philosophy eliminates the possibility of the existence of a deity or a higher power. Therefore, the philosophy can be in turn attributed to atheism. Other individuals might find the concept of responsibility empowering because it gives them the confidence that they are in charge of their actions.

Sartres belief in the concept of essential freedom raises the conviction that free beings, people are responsible for all elements of themselves, their consciousness, and their actions (Sartre 38). The philosophers reasoning when it comes to the association between freedom and responsibility is that it is absolute freedom facilitates total responsibility. Consequently, even irresponsibility is a result of a free-willed decision to let go of control of ones actions and their consequences. According to Sartre, we are all responsible for the ethics that come from exercises of our freedom. Sartres philosophy was targeted at a society that would be driven by both collective and individual conscience. This philosophy can also be used to construct social structures thereby formulating methods through which individuals might ideally interact with each other to affirm their respective humanities, but he is dismissive of any version of universal ethics (Howells 56). Sartres main argument when it comes to responsibility and freedom is that morality is a subjective effort that is guided by the principle of free will through individual conscience.

There are some interesting points in regards to Sartres views on freedom and responsibility. How the philosopher applies freedom to the context of everyday life is both fascinating and confusing. One observer notes that Sartres philosophy can be interpreted to mean that the universal situation for the contingency of freedom in the plenum of being of the world in as much as this datum, which is there, only in order not to constrain freedom, is revealed to this freedom only as already illuminated by the end which freedom chooses (Sartre, 48). This confusing statement can be interpreted to mean that the choices we make in tandem with our goals provide us with a chance to utilize our freedom. On the other hand, this choice-factor dictates the way through which we interpret our realities and their constituents.

For example, our encounters in this world are dependent on the choice factor that makes a person choose to see a mountain as high when he/she is interested in climbing it. On the other hand, a person who is only interested in taking pictures of the mountain will only see it as a picturesque, majestic, or imposing. These two people use their free will to make different choices about the same object. This example is an interesting way of showing how human beings freedom of consciousness makes them view an object by interpreting it using the choices that they have at any particular moment. On the other hand, the extent of someones free will can only be tested in the light of the present situation. A person who is interested in climbing a mountain today will have a completely different view of the same object when he is interested in painting it in the future. This scenario also vilifies most of the judgments people pass on their fellow human beings.

Although Sartres philosophy is forward and straight to the point, I do not agree with his argument on the freedom that is possessed by human beings. When interpreted, Sartres philosophy can mean that a persons freedom cannot be taken away from him/her. According to Sartre, a persons freedom can only be effected through interference on his being. This means a persons freedom is sustained even in the event of his inflicted demise. This argument is difficult to apply in the practical world. In the context of the modern world it would be hard to support an argument that no matter what you do to a person (even if it is jailing, maiming, or killing him/her), you cannot take away his/her freedom. On the other hand, sustaining the philosophy that human beings are to blame for their statures in life.

Another shortcoming that applies to Sartres philosophy is the argument that freedom is merely the ability to wish what one wants, not achieve it (Stewart 312). In my view, our wishes as human beings are tantamount to dreams unless they materialize. Our wishes are not in any way a reflection of our freedom as Sartre would have us believe. Essentially, Sartre pits his definition of freedom against all other popular perceptions among human beings. Existential freedom as described by Sartre is to some extent controversial. For example, to Sartre, a prisoner of war is free, existentially, but this freedom does not exist in the physical realm. This argument can only suffice through the written word but it fails to satisfy practical situations.

Works Cited

Caws, Peter. Sartre, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 2009. Print.

Gutting, Gary. French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.

Howells, Christina. The Cambridge Companion to Sartre, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenology Essay on Ontology, Washington Square Press, 1992. Print.

Solomon, Robert. Existentialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

Stewart, Jon. Merleau-Pontys Criticisms of Sartres Theory of Freedom. Philosophy Today 39.3 (2005): 311-324. Print.

Introduction

Philosophers have viewed the political role as well as the justifications for liberty to be vital in political and ethical matters. Both Kant and Rousseau agree with each other on the significance of liberty in politics, though Kant looks at freedom as autonomy, while Rousseau views it as dependence.

Liberty looks at the norms of rights of independence and equal external freedom, while autonomy looks at the norms of education, perfection, virtue and integrity, among others. The difference in the approaches assumed by Kant and Rousseau regarding the norms of liberty and moral autonomy determine the perspective of their theories of justice. While Rousseau looks at freedom in terms of securing justice in a manner as to attain moral autonomy, Kant looks at justice with a view to attain liberty.

Civil liberty according to Rousseau

Rousseau observes a transformation when individuals shift from a state of nature whereby individuals follow their inclinations without thought, to a civil state, as indicated on page 150, where he states that Only then, when the voice of duty replaces physical impulse and right replaces appetite, does man, who had hitherto taken only himself into account, find himself forced to act upon other principles and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations.

According to Rousseau, mans action is based on pity and self-love, without considering his involvement, though they are driven by the strongest desire. The society can impose moral notions to individuals, thereby influencing their rules or principles, and causing them to act without consideration their desires or inclinations. Civil liberty is therefore the freedom to act according to the law, without considering individual moral ideas (Rousseau 150).

Kants causality property of freedom

Freedom is observed when decisions are made without any external forces or causes influencing them. Kant believes that his definition of freedom does not make it lawless just because it does not refer to the laws of nature. The concept of causality is basically a law, since the presentation of a cause results in the occurrence of an effect. This implies that freedom conceptually follows the law, since freedom involves causality, and causality involves law.

Difference between Rousseau and Kant

According to Rousseau, justice looks at the conditions that can secure moral autonomy. With this line of thought, moral autonomy is attained via the rights of liberty. Kant on the other hand looks at justice in terms of liberty and not moral autonomy or virtue.

This implies that Rousseau views liberty as just one of the components of justice. He also views justice to be realizable only when people realize their moral autonomy. Kant on the other hand views the norms of liberty as the only requirements for justice, which implies that most of the societies that practice liberty have realized justice.

Kant (49) views freedom as autonomy, as seen in his words, What else, then, can freedom of the will be but autonomy, i.e., the property that the will has of being a law to itself? Kant (7) believes that the only good thing is good will, which looks at a person doing the right thing for the right reason; a concept only understandable by humans. It is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will.

Kant (41) further argues that it is this human aspect that gives man dignity. Whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity&Morality and humanity, insofar as it capable of morality, alone has dignity.

Autonomy requires that people make rational decisions based on their intelligence. True freedom is attained when people are able to overcome their desires, and pursue morality. Kant (49) states, Natural necessity is a heteronomy of efficient causes, in as much as every effect is possible only in accordance with the law that something else determines the efficient cause to exercise its causality. The categorical imperative is a law that helps people to overcome their desires.

It has two concepts. The first states that man should not be used as a means, and the second states that the maxims founded should be universalizable. Kants perception of freedom was therefore associated to ones duty to be moral, as required by the categorical imperative. Kant (10) noted that hindrances and other obstacles that raised challenges to people behaving morally were effective in making the people appear brighter and better, by overcoming them.

The argument put forward by Rousseau suggests that freedom and liberty means observing the laws that individuals set up by themselves, instead of reacting on impulse, which he referred to as slavery. Rousseau (104) argued that liberty is the noblest faculty of man& he further stated that the inability of humans to follow reason led to people acting with brutality, as slaves of instinct.

Rousseaus theory of reciprocity

Rousseau argues that justice is not a product of reason alone, but must also include the aspect of reciprocity between the individuals. He further says that justice in social relations requires a symbiotic interlink between individuals. Reciprocity is a result of two social acts, leading to justice. According to Rousseau (43), these are:

the joint and unanimous act of particular wills to recognize equivalent rights in all others as a claim to justice; not motivated by contingency or necessity, but arising from the motivation of humans to improve their lives and to transcend the state of nature and moment of reciprocity constituted by the absolute volition to justice by a general sovereign will towards each particular will.

Rousseau differentiates between the three types of rights: natural, civil and the sovereign rights of the general will. In addition to this, he observes the contradiction due to independence of the specific will towards its own interests and that of the general will.

Social contract

According to Rousseaus three stages, the purpose for man establishing social contract was to order the society. In addition to this, social contracts were beneficial in eliminating the wars, common in the second stage (95). According to Rousseau, the perception of dependence and inequality during the civil wars was a version of the social contract propagated by the wealthy people in order to protect their property from destruction.

Despite this, the wealthy were also not free, since every person was in a way dependent on another person. This was seen in Rousseaus argument, (95) free and independent as men were before, they were now& brought into subjugation, as it were, to all nature, and particularly to one another; and each became in some degree a slave even in becoming the master of other men&

Rousseau observed freedom to be attained only when every individual became dependent on the whole as opposed to a particular thing or individual. This was possible by forming a union based on the will of involved parties, whereby justice is replaced with impulse, as an individual reasons before acting, instead of acting based on the preferred course of action.

Theories of freedom

Both Rousseau and Kant emphasize the difference between negative and positive freedom. The two philosophers show the irrelevance of negative or natural freedom, and establish and abstract the metaphysical concept of freedom. This is observed when Kant (49) states that the freedom of causality is negative and is therefore unfruitful for attaining an insight regarding its essence; but there arises from it a positive concept, which as such is richer and more fruitful.

Similarly, Rousseau (96), shows freedom to be more useful in its positive sense, though he shows a passion for natural freedom of man in the original state of nature, in his declarations that individuals undergo a shift from a stupid and unimaginative animal into an intelligent being and a man.

Rousseau (96) believes that the only dignified notion of liberty is the positive one, as seen in his statement that What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty& what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses&. We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself& on the other hand, Kants notion of freedom is fully internal and separated from all physical conditions of life.

According to Kant (3), reason is an indisputable concept, upon which freedom is founded. This is an indication of total abstraction of the spirit from the body. Empirics do not conform to his ideology of morality, as seen when he states that The moral law in its purity and genuineness& can be sought nowhere but in a pure philosophy.

Therefore, pure philosophy (metaphysics) must precede; without it there can be no moral philosophy at all. That philosophy which mixes pure principles with empirical ones does not deserve the name of philosophy&

Rousseau speaks of a moral, positive sense of duty, though it is not totally isolated from its surroundings. He observes that the duties and moral aspects of a savage are dependent on the individuals material condition. The wealthy and the poor members of the illegitimate social contract are affected by their inequality and dependence. He observes that moral existence is only possible when an individual becomes dependent on only the whole, and not a single person.

Rousseau (125) indicates that liberty and equality are interactive principles, as seen in his statement that  The end of every system of legislation, we shall find it reduce itself to two main objects, liberty and equality- liberty, because all particular dependence means so much force taken from the body of the State, and equality, because liberty cannot exist without it.

The law that man gives himself

This is an important concept for the two philosophers, though its origin is different. While Kant observes only rationality and duty, Rousseau borrows his concept from general will. Kant (35) observes that only rational individuals are of worth, every rational being, exists as an end in himself. In addition to this, Kant (10) observes duty as the only worthy motive, whereby an individual follows a particular course of action, not from inclination or fear, but from duty-then his maxim indeed has a moral content.

According to Rousseau, the general will is not known to every individual, though everyone can take part in the freedom of dependence. The internal processes of rationality and duty are not a requirement for individuals to exercise freedom. This is because freedom is not only a metaphysical concept, but is also based on equality and physical aspects of existence.

The theory of freedom according to Kant is consistent in its metaphysical basis, though he fails to consider the realities facing the moral agent. His theory demands that an individual adheres to his principles, irrespective of the instability of the world around him. The same does not apply to Rousseau, as he put into consideration the factors influencing the moral agent. Rousseau acknowledges that rationality is not the only facet of man, since he puts into consideration the factors brought forward by the sensual world.

Epistemological shortcomings of the theories

The theories put forward on the defenses of freedom by both Kant and Rousseau fall sort since they lack a defense and proof of the will, indicating that people do not exist in a deterministic universe. Kants theory, for instance, does not provide an adequate argument for freedom, since it is based on the supremacy of the will.

Kant defends the capability of individuals to be rational, and at the same time recognizes the likelihood of error in their reasoning. Kant (47) also observes shortcomings in the reasoning of man, as he states that the wickedness in human nature which necessitates coercion and demands that the weak-willed irrational beings make choices based on duty.

Rousseau on the other hand identifies the heteronomous character of individuals, in his view of the state of nature. He supports that individuals create morality and self reflection with regard to freedom in order to ensure equality and happiness.

Rousseau observes that freedom is imposed on individuals due to the organization of society, and not necessarily due to their own will. He identifies that what people need is not perfection in terms of the objectives of society, but the general will provided for people to be dependent on, besides each other (Rousseau 104).

Conclusion

Neither of the theories is perfect, though they are beneficial in helping us to identify and understand our conception of freedom. The theories by Rousseau and Kant help us to understand moral freedom, in a society where freedom, justice and equality are habitual topics for debate, and therefore beneficial in the preservation of human rights and freedoms.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) [Paperback]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Print.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract and Discourses [Paperback]. New York: Noach Publishing, 2007. Print.

Across history, people have grappled with the question of freedom. Many have over time, due to the happenings in their life, wondered whether they have any control over anything in their life. For some other people, freedom is a given.

It is exemplified by they ability to make choices. Choice implies freedom i.e. if there is no freedom to choose, there is no choice. However, in other peoples conception, even in the face of choices, one is influenced on what to choose and can not claim to be free; he or she can not choose anything else apart from what the forces that control him or her incline him or her towards (Taylor 143).

This paper looks into free will as a phenomenon. The paper seeks to establish to what extent human beings can claim to be free. This paper, in agreement with compatibilists, will seek to establish that although determined to some extent, there is a lot that human beings determine. A human being can only be a determined auto-determiner. What this means is that, in human choices, there is always an element of determinism and freedom.

To illustrate that human beings are determined auto-determiners, I will first discuss the causal notion of determinism. Causal determinism is based on the fact that for every effect there is always a cause and the cause informs the nature of the effect. Based on this kind of basis, hard determinists have posited that humans are determined and free will is an illusion. On the other end of the spectrum are indeterminists.

Indeterminists argue that much chaos and unpredictability can be discerned in nature. For example, considering human behavior, it often happens that given certain conditions one is expected to behave in a certain way but he or she does not. Despite of that, the indeterminist view is also untenable.

Faced with the two extremes, I will argue that a compatibilist approach is more realistic. Hard determinists or indeterminist have many objections to the compatibilist approach. However, through analyzing some of the possible objections by hard determinists and indeterminists, the viability of the compatibilist view will be illustrated.

There are people who contend that mankind is not free by any chance. They postulate that for a thing to be there must be a cause that facilitates its being. The cause of a thing defines what the thing is and all its characteristics. Based on the principle of universal causation, Aristotle posited the first cause, the prime mover or the unmoved mover.

He argued that each thing has an efficient and primary cause that determines its existence. Like Aristotle, Determinists believe that everything is caused and the cause determines the essence or whatness of each given being. A thing can not be more than what its essence allows (Taylor 137). This is the first level of determination i.e. that we are determined by our whatness or essence.

The essence of something is what makes a thing what it is. The essence of all things is predetermined by causes that produce them. Each of the causes is explained by other causes. However, this regression can not be endless. According to Aristotle, at the end of the regression is an uncaused cause.

St. Thomas Aquinas took up Aristotles ideas and affirmed that the causal regression can not be endless. He argued that by reason, an order or system of efficient causes can be discerned in nature with one following the other. An efficient cause is basically the producer of an effect. For example, a carpenter is the efficient cause for a chair.

Considering the efficient causes discernible in nature, a system evolves whereby for everything there is one such cause. The carpenter is the efficient cause of the chair. However, the carpenter is not an efficient cause in self; he or she resulted from parents, who had their parents. The lineage of parents can be followed until we arrive at the first man or woman. To explain the existence of man, scientists proposed the big bang theory and related evolution.

For philosophers like Aquinas, the big bang is not explanatory enough. There must be a cause for the explosion posited by the scientists. According to Aquinas, there must have been a being, prior to all beings, which is the ultimate cause.

The ultimate cause must have characteristics or capacity for all possible things. For Aquinas, this first cause or ultimate cause is what theologians call God. Theologians teach that God knows and His knowing is not limited by our conception of time. It follows that before anything comes to be, it is already known by God.

They further, point out that God has a plan; the divine plan for creation. Everything fits or has to fit into this divine plan. It is this assumption that has led to postulates such as divine law. In nature, one can perceive an order that was instituted by the author of nature or creation per se. therefore, given things are created to fit into a given plan, it follows that a human being is a mere puppet or cog in the wheel of a system.

Not all people agree with first cause related claims. Another way one might look at determinism is to consider the findings of cultural studies. Cultural studies have continually shown that whenever an individual is born into a society, society makes effort to ensure he or she fits into given societal prescriptions.

For example, two twins, a boy and a girl, are born to the same mother. From the moment their sexes are identified, societal stereotypes begin to shape their lives. The girl is dressed in a given way, fed on given food stuff and handled in given ways that are dissimilar to how the boy is handled.

As the two children grow up, they are taught cultural relative ways of doing things. Society teaches individuals, through the process of socialization, how they should behave and live. The social norms become the normal life and any deviation from the same is treated with utmost harshness from the rest of society. Therefore, individuals live by standards they did not choose but rather values in-calculated into them from in the past (Cahn & Eckert 136).

Contrary to determinists, indeterminists argue that chance and randomness in physical happenings and human behavior is a reality. The basic tenet that drives the indeterminist view is that there are no necessary causes for events. A necessary cause is one that has to be present for a given effect to be realized. For example, for one to realize a Microsoft word document, he or she has to have a Microsoft word package.

For indeterminists, for every effect or event in the world, there are a number of discernible causes that are not necessarily dependent on another. For example, take anger as an emotion in people. Some people can get angry because another has laughed. The same action of laughter may elicit happy feelings and more laughter from another person, given the same context. Therefore, the same act of laughter leads to different effects. It would be false to conclude that laughter is a necessary cause for anger in an individual.

People make choices everyday and every situation in life is framed by alternatives. Indeterminists, basing on the fact that there is randomness and spontaneity especially in animal and human action, point out that not all causes are of necessity (Rachels 481). It is not necessarily the case that a hungry human being will jump at food provided by whatsoever party.

Given the dilemma between freedom and determinism, two kinds of positions are taken by thinkers; incompatibility vs. compatibility. For incompatibilists, determinism is incompatible or can not be harmonized with free will or freedom; therefore, incompatibilists choose only one position or the other. Indeterminists believe that man is absolutely free while determinists believe that free will is just an illusion.

The second school i.e. compatibilists appreciate that determinism does not exclude free will by necessity. The compatibilist view is more realistic than all the other positions taken by thinkers on freedom and causality. Considering individuals lives, it is clear that much that happens to them and around them is not in their doing. However, it is also true that there is enough that people have control over. For example, individuals grow to choose careers in the life. One chooses a career that his or her talents are disposed to.

For example, an individual may truly desire to be a professional footballer. However, due to genetically determined physique or temperamental disposition, he or she may not do well as a footballer. Being too short as not to comfortably fit into a football team is a natural accident that one can do nothing about; this condition is predetermined. Secondly, becoming a good football star also depends on exposure. Football is played more in certain societies than in others.

One has no choice about the society into which he or she is born. If one is born into a society where football is cherished, the chances of becoming a football star are higher due to cultural conditioning. Despite the mentioned natural and cultural factors, history has many examples of people who have beaten their circumstances and natural deficiency to accomplish fetes. Where there is a will, there is a way; it is said.

There are individuals who are too short or too tall or may not be considered to have talent. However, due to learning from experts and practicing hard, they come to learn the game and excel at it. This means that although there are limiting factors, an individuals decision and willingness matters a lot in what becomes of him or her.

Hard determinists would object to my soft determinism on the basis that as long as one believes in God, then the rational choices that one makes are illusionary free (Taylor 143). They are illusionary free because one can only choose what is in tandem with Gods demands or dictates.

Secondly, they would argue that even willingness in an individual depends on circumstantial factors e.g. upbringing and encouragement or discouragement from society. Further, the hard determinists would point out that when it comes to individuals in society, one would be realistic to conclude that socio-cultural factors determine individuals. The rationale in rational choices is determined by what is right by societal expectations (Rachels 478).

Such objections are right, however, it has to be noted that, once one is mature enough, he or she can discern and critically analyze issues thus making decisions that transcend socio-cultural factors.

Intellectual maturity and development of intellectual capacity, enables individuals to transcend socio-cultural stipulations and embrace objectivity and reasonableness. Therefore, socio-cultural factors determine individuals but once one is mature enough, he or she gains capacity to influence and change socio-cultural ways and structures (Taylor 139).

When it comes to divine determination, it is more realistic to argue that God determines human beings so that by essence they are individuals who can make rational choices. Freedom is not about indeterminism, rather freedom is about choosing between alternatives in our settings based on rational considerations.

In conclusion, this essay points to the compatibilists view on free will and determinism as the most plausible one. The determinists have a point in the sense that if God exists, then divine determination is inescapable. Secondly, observing individuals in society, it is clear that cultural norms and expectations shape the way individuals think and go about given issues in their lives.

However, freedom is a reality that all living individuals have enjoyed or yearned for at some particular time in their lives (Rachels 479). By the mere fact that choice, whether determined or not, is possible, freedom cant be a mere illusion.

Basing on the belief that people are free, human beings are held responsible and morality becomes a possibility (Rachels 483). A sense of good and evil runs deep in our thinking, it is more or less instinctual that we associate given things with good feelings and others with bad feelings. Human beings are determined. However, they are determined by their essence to be beings that can rationally consider options in given contexts and make choices.

Works Cited

Cahn, Steven, M., & Eckert, Maureen. Philosophical Horizons: Introductory Readings. Belmont: Thompson Wadsworth, 2006

Rachels, James. Problems from Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill Companies, 2005

Taylor, Richard. Metaphysics. Upper Saddler River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc., 1963