So what is freedom really? Gary Spense (1996) actually says it is dead because that is the only state in which a living human being has no choices to make. Malcolm X (1965) seems to be saying that knowledge is freedom, and this is also about choices. Anna Quindlen (2004) implies in her article that freedom is anarchy. This is also about choices, unlimited choices with no restraint. Each one of these authors uses different analogies and imagery to convey their meaning, but they all agree on one thing: freedom involves choices.
Malcolm X says that freedom is being given the same choices as everyone else. After a long and very interesting description of his first times in prison, and how he was frustrated in not being able to communicate in standard written English or read an average book, he uses one sentence which has a profound effect upon the reader: Over and over again, aloud, to myself, I read my own handwriting. This one sentence conveys to intense emotion of the moment which most of us have never experienced. Most of us do not really remember learning to read, and we have not read the amount of literature that Malcolm X read. It seems that he was led to a banquet and he never left it.
While his article focuses on how he learned what slavery was and how it continues all over the world, he is also showing us how knowledge is freedom. Every example he uses depended upon the lack of knowledge on the part of the victims. While I do not totally agree with everything he says about the white man is a devil, any more than I would ever say that the black man was uncivilized, he shows how the power of education and knowledge tends to create two classes, the powerful and the controlled. At the end of the article, he says that it was a prison that freed him. It enabled him to study.
Gary Spense introduces the idea that the only true freedom is not having any needs. He shows how there is always a price paid for that which we think of as freedom, and it generally requires that we give up some other freedom. So freedom is simply the choice of which freedoms we will protect and which we will surrender in exchange. Spense implies that freedom is the bliss of ignorance. His two horses were free, in that they had no knowledge of any choices they had. Whether or not they had choices is not as important as knowing they had choices.
So we can say whatever we like if we need no friends. We can do whatever we like to a point if we need no allies. However, in reality, we only have the freedom to think whatever we like, and only as long as we know that this freedom is restricted to thought only. He talks about social commitments, respect, employment: all of which are things we exchange for our freedom. His most telling image is from Robert Frost, which he connects to his own memory of his team of horses which were easy in the harness. They really had no choices but were free by virtue of total innocence. They did not know they had any choices, so there were none. I do not remember who wrote that ignorance is bliss, but it is what Spense is saying here. Freedom has responsibility attached.
Anna Quindlen is talking about the responsibilities of freedom and how many of us ignore them. She points out the cost of certain freedoms, such as the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, the freedom to drive or ride without seatbelts, and the freedom to pollute the air with tobacco smoke. These are all freedoms that have been restricted due to the damage they do to society in monetary cost and the immeasurable cost to life and happiness. Think about the driver who hits a motorcycle rider at 5 miles per hour, but who knows that the rider will never be able to get a job again due to brain injurious. Yes, the driver of the car should be free of guilt, but is this always so? What about the children who suffer emphysema or the waitresses and other workers who contract cancer from second-hand smoke? Quindlen also points out the cost of these freedoms in health care and the loss of productivity.
Quindlen points out that any freedom at the cost of the freedom of others must be judged according to merit. Whose freedom takes precedence? She also points out that many of these cherished freedoms cost all of society. While it is not mentioned in her article it reminds me that in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, people risk their lives to vote in a free election. It is a shame how low our voter turnout is. Quindlen suggests that we should follow the example of Australia and fine those who do not vote unless they have a viable reason. I suspect this would be seen as an infringement against our freedom to reject what we no longer value: our freedom.
So I suggest that freedom is really non-existent, but that we do have limited freedom and must choose how we will limit it. Whatever freedom we want requires that we make a choice to exchange it for another freedom or take up the responsibilities which accompany certain freedoms. I am reminded of the famous line from Me and Bobby McGee : freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose. I think all three of these authors would agree with that.
The article describes believes as well as the actions of a farmer who thinks different from what the other people do about animals. The famer feels and practices animal farming, because he believes that animal meat should also be incorporated in their diets.
This was against the traditions of those in the United States as most were vegetarians (Bergson 1948). The farmer respects the animals as he urges that, each and every one of them was important in the ecological issues.
In the farm where he practices this is referred to as a polyface that is to mean, a land of many faces as he raises different types of animals in the farm. The land is said to be there for fifty years. In some way, the farmer had inherited this from his father who was also practicing animal farming.
The farmer desired to do a variety of things that he had no legal right over this is because, the government in the region had restricted on the type of food the people in the region should eat (Lavoie 1985). According to the government in the region rearing of animals as a source of food appeared unusual and hence people had adapted to this resulting to the being vegetarians.
This is demonstrated by the way people viewed the idea of the farmer keeping animals in his farm as not fit. As an ecological engineer, the farmer felt that the animals were part of the ecological system.
He is at one time being interrogated for his rearing the animals where the cow is said to be causing negative contributions in the environmental predicaments but he supports his actions by telling the interrogator not to blame the cow for the harmful effects of industrial food system.
On the other hand, the farmer had the moral rights in the rearing of the animals. This is due to the fact that, he raises animal with a good motive of providing a better local diet to the people, which would have an indigenous flair.
For the farmer, farming is indivisible from faith, natural balance, and attitude as well as from politics which was at the time ruling on the type of diet that people in the area should have. He had not at any time campaigned against consumption of other diets, but instead he educated people in his different books on the importance of incorporating meat in the diet (Lavoie 1985).
He also brings out the role of the animals in the ecosystem as beneficial to the environment as well as to other crops that could be grown perennially. In his speeches he not only elaborates on the importance of rearing animals but tells people to also focus on what can be grown fit in their area with little effort.
In a book by Pollan, the farmer is brought out as a fame man who raises the animals for meat in the correct way (Bergson 1948). It is also through his book and speeches that he becomes an adored speaker. His reluctance to sort out, transformed him to a convincing ethical influence for the food association.
Besides livestock rearing, the farmer also engages himself into other activities as a writer as well as a speaker where he at times comes up as a theorist, an entrepreneur, activist or an ecological engineer as he tries to emphasize on the significance of eating meat as well as raising livestock.
The restrictions in his actions had direct effects on the communitys development as people could not practice his teachings despite the fact that, they were all beneficial to the citizens due to fear as this could be viewed as going against the laws set by the government (Foss 1994).
The limitations in his preaching the benefits that come hand in hand with the raising of the animals played a great role in delaying the progression in the region. In his writings he argues that, in every system in natural world contains an animal constituent for the purposes of recycling.
He as well expounds on the symbiotic relationships that exist between the animals and plants. This gave a clear view as to why he insisted that animals should not be excluded in the farms as they had an additional advantage over providing diet to man.
The constraints gave the farmer a very harsh time in convincing the citizens his reasons behind raising the animals (Lavoie 1985). This is because; the people did not see the essence keeping these animals and eventually killing them for the purpose of eating.
This was greatly drawn back by the government failing to consider the farmers point of view. The governments own interests in promoting the food system in the area had a vast contribution in dragging the development in the region. In his website he had elaborated further on the matter of respecting as well as valuing the animal one raise. This appeared ironical because their destiny was them being slaughtered.
The irony in it as seen by the people, demoralized his efforts and this proved hard to convince the citizen hence no development could be attained easily due to peoples perception on the message he brought forth (Foss 1994). In the region for this to make sense to people, there ought to be somebody else who should be concerned with the limitations in order to ease the negative pressures on the farmer. This would help in promoting development in the region.
According to Orval Watts, the economy of a community is dependent on each and every member contribution . He elaborates on the significance of free markets as well as governments interventions in eradication of famine. By this, it would be ensured of development in the community hence, the progression will be experienced in the whole region.
He portrayed this more as he was a director of economic education hence had the opportunity to pass the message across to all. Besides this, he also looked into the importance of acknowledging those who has vision in developing the community. This shows the need for the government in the United States to have recognized the efforts of Salatin as this could aid in the progression in the region.
John Locke intricate on freedom by quoting To understand political power right and derive it from its original, we must consider what state other men are naturally in. this relate to Salatins situation where despite that he had good plans for the community he was not given freedom to expound his effort as what he was doing was not allowed in the society.
He also quoted that, He who appropriates land to himself by his labor, does not lessen but increase the common stock of mankind. By this he was putting emphasis on the issue of working hard as always hard work leads to better products.
This relates to Salatins hard work he did as in the article, besides giving out speeches, he spent a lot of time on his livestock and if this was done by every member in the society it could lead to development in the community (Bergson 1948).
According to FA Hayek, cultural advancement is a course in which a society and motive developed at the same time and not due to an individuals motive deliberately building.
This in relation to Salatin, he had the capability to promoting development in the society but since it calls for contribution by every member in the society, this could not easily be experienced as no one in the society had the same opinion as his (Lavoie 1985).
The reasoning of the government and the whole community at large would have lead to the progression needed in the community if only all played a part in incorporating new ideas to add to the efforts by Salatin.
In conclusion, the development of society is dependent on the kind of the government in the region and also its contribution in the regions development.
For a community to progress, the effort of the members also matter a lot as this is what determines the destiny. Consideration of peoples efforts is a key factor to be considered as this is what determines the outcome of the society that is either development or no development at all.
References
Bergson, A. (1948). Socialist economics. In H. S. Ellis & B. F. Haley (Eds.), A survey of contemporary economics. (pp. 412-421.). Homewood: R. D. Irwin Publishers.
Foss, N. J. (1994). The Austrian school and modern economics. (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Hillsdale College Press.
Lavoie, D. (1985). Rivalry and central planning: The socialist calculation debate reconsidered. (7th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freedom refers to the ability of people to act or undertake any activities without undue restrictions or coercion. In the 19th century, some philosophers disqualified the presence of real or genuine freedom in the world. The philosophers described freedom as an illusion, which exists in the ideal world only. However, in the 20th century, philosophers highlighted that genuine free will, which is not counterfeit exists in the world (Bowie, Michaels, and Solomon 18).
The philosophers further elucidated that due to democracy, people are free from different forms of restrictions such as slavery, subjugation, colonialism, and other forms of domination. On the other hand, determinism theory explains that there is an order that leads to occurrences of events in the world and in the universe. Thus, according to proponents of determinism, actions that people perform determine outcomes.
Freedom and determinism have major differences. While freedom encourages people to perform activities in a democratic manner, determinism brings to fore the fact that actions lead to predictable results. Conversely, as much as people are free from many forms of coercion, dictation, or subjection, freedom is limited to those actions that are legal and ethical.
Hence, express freedom is not in the world, since the state determines legality of actions and morality in the society. The sovereignty of a state in determination of choice is evident from the existing variance of rights and wrongs in various nations, societies, and states. According to Bowie, Michaels, and Solomon, determinism implies that as much as humans are free to perform any activity, they must know that these actions have outcomes (64).
For instance, when an individual throws a stone into a glass window, the expected outcome is breakage of the glass and destruction of the window. Thus, determinism elaborates the need to examine a likely outcome from an event before engaging in it. In this view, the essay assesses the relationship between freedom and determinism in contemporary society.
Freedom
Freedom is the ability of people to perform activities or make choices without any limitation, coercion, or dictation. Freedom has its basis on the fact that human beings can make choices in a manner that is free from any form of compulsion. In the 18th and 19th centuries, many countries were under colonial and tyrannical rulers who applied dictatorship in their regimes. Therefore, philosophers and other scholars of that time could not see the possibility of true freedom existing, since they experienced dictatorship.
Bowie, Michaels, and Solomon argue that with the advent of independence, many citizens living in various states or nations gained freedom to undertake various activities (53). Democracy and liberty in these nations gave them the autonomy to decide and do things that they deemed right. Additionally, these countries and nations gave their citizens the right to work, worship, and engage in activities that they believed was good for them.
Types of Freedom
Individuality and Positive Freedom
There are various types of freedom present in the world. They include individuality, positive liberty, freedom from manipulation, and negative liberty. Individuality gives a person the opportunity to express and develop a personality, which is different. The demonstration involves public and private lives, which comprise personality of a person.
Societal norms, traditional beliefs, and technological advancements are some of the factors that significantly affect this form of freedom. Since the norms, beliefs, and advancements touch on ones livelihood, they are likely to determine how one displays the unique self. Bowie, Michaels, and Solomon assert that cultural practices and traditional beliefs dictate the life of a person as they have power to influence development of a certain behaviors (632). Positive free will is the autonomy to perform various things without restraints.
Presently, human beings have the freedom to do some things only if they get assistance from others. For example, someone cannot read or write unless helped by another person who knows how to read and write, yet it is a right accorded by the state. Thus, according to positive freedom, some activities that are regarded as rights require extended assistance from others or have limitations that the concerned person has to meet before doing the act.
Freedom from Manipulation and Negative Freedom
Freedom from manipulation emphasizes on the need for societies or communities to treat others as ends in themselves. It articulates the vitality of giving one the freedom to make informed decisions concerning what is good or bad. Since freedom is an art, people should not employ it to demean or oppress others (Bowie, Michaels, and Solomon 627).
Freedom from manipulation explains that superiors are likely to employ others as a means to their ends, and dump them after achieving their desired ends. Thus, this type of autonomy promotes self-sufficiency and cushions persons from exploitation.
On the other hand, negative liberty asserts that an individual is free to use properties or belongings without interference from external entities. In this form of autonomy, the state protects the citizens from tangible or actual actions on properties or bodily harm. Subsequently, it allows the use and employment of these resources by the rightful owners in their quest to achieve financial, economic, cultural, and societal freedoms.
Determinism
Determinism is a philosophy, which states that actions lead to expected results. In deterministic approach, one can predict the outcome of an action before initiating it.
The philosophy also argues that for any action, there are conditions, which an individual must consider before doing something (Bowie, Michaels, and Solomon 640). People usually execute their actions in line with the expected consequences, whether they are good or bad. Notably, determinism notes that all events in the universe and on earth owe their existence to actions that precede them.
Determinism brings to fore the fact that actions lead to predictable results. Hence, determinism demonstrates the presence of an order that leads to occurrences of events in the world and in the universe. Hence, determinism articulates the fact that consequences attribute their existence to actions, such that an action automatically leads to a given result or outcome. Fundamentally, determinism exists as environmental, biological, cultural, and behavioral types, which dictates the occurrence of events.
Types of Determinism
Biological and Cultural Determinism
Biological determinism explains that people behave in ways that display genetic structures. This type of determinism elaborates that genes determine a persons behavior and influence what one does directly. Regarding this philosophy, genes have definitive control of ones behavior and that a person does not determine what to do if it is against the control of genes. Philosophers often argue that irrespective of the control that genes have on an individuals behavior, environment and society can at times lead to slight behavioral changes.
Cultural determinism notes that when a person lives in a certain environment under the influence of a given culture, the character that one gains reflects cultural setup. Thus, many members of a given society will behave in line with cultural structures inherited from the society. According to Bowie, Michaels, and Solomon, televisions, radios, and other media of communication play a pivotal role in instilling social and cultural values to an individual (621).
As opposed to innate traits acquired biologically from parents, cultural determinism asserts its influence through events and practices of the society. Therefore, political, social, and economic structures of a community attribute their organizations to the cultural elements inherited by individuals.
Environmental and Behavioral Determinism
Environmental determinism also refers to geographical or climatic determinism. The type of climate or weather condition limits actions that people do. This is apparent from the different economic activities that humans carry out in various parts of the world.
For example, agriculture takes place in areas with fertile and good soils, whereas mining occurs in areas with high fossil deposits. Consequently, it is likely that people living around these regions do things that produce ends, which meet their desired needs. Behavioral determinism explains that ones behavior has a direct link to what one does.
For example, what an introvert does is different from what another person who is an extrovert chooses to undertake. The link between actions and behavior is based on the fact that it concerns thoughts of an individual. People always engage in those activities that they believe to give good results based on observations, perspectives, and prior experiences (Bowie, Michaels, and Solomon 640).
Therefore, one is likely to select those activities that are relevant to certain behavior and produce desired outcomes. Notably, there is a close relationship between behavioral and environmental types of determinism. The relationship exists because both environment and behaviour determine character of a person to some extent, and hence, contribute to the overall behavior.
Relationship between Freedom and Determinism
Freedom allows people to undertake legal activities without any restrictions or coercion. It is also liberation from all forms of coercion, duress, subjection, or dictatorship.
Thus, with freedom, one can enjoy the right or independence to do things that could not be possible in the absence of freedom. Freedom encompasses rights such as the right to worship, which explains the fact that human beings can worship a god of their choice. Additionally, it includes the right to education, which asserts that one is eligible to know how to read and write. It also incorporates the right to basic needs in that someone has the right to be in possession of food, shelter, and clothes (Bowie, Michaels, and Solomon 647).
Determinism holds that consequences are subject to actions, and that an individual dictates the outcome of an event through the kind of activities undertaken. Thus, while freedom provides room for individuals to enjoy liberty and engage in actions that they deem right, determinism demonstrates the fact that actions have consequences, which are directly proportional to the magnitude of an act.
Conclusion
Freedom gives individuals the right to do things that the society deems legal and ethical. However, one always chooses those activities that are practical in the contemporary life. This implies that as much as there is freedom, determinism still dictates and overrides the choice of actions that a person executes. For instance, the presence of the right to worship only aids a member of a society to exercise cultural determinism and worship gods inherited from cultural background of a certain community.
Additionally, members of a state or a nation engage in activities that relate to determinism, and so freedom helps them to perform actions that they deem necessary in line with their behavioral, biological, cultural, and other types of determinism. Thus, it is clear from the essay that freedom and determinism have some form of a relationship.
Works Cited
Bowie, Lee, Meredith Michaels, and Robert Solomon. Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. New York: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
The idea of a good life is often arbitrary due to the lack of clarity of what constitutes the subject matter, and what criteria should be used to define ones life as good. Although a combination of spiritual, psychological, economic, political, social, and environmental well-being is traditionally seen as the marker of a good life, the notion under analysis is still far too broad to make far-reaching conclusions. Nevertheless, the idea of a good life could arguably be understood as the presence of freedom that allows one to make personal and professional choices entirely uninhibitedly (). Using the example of Malala Yousafzai, one may conclude that freedom, particularly, freedom to receive education, voice opinions, and contribute to the community, must be considered an essential part of a good life, while not being its only constituent.
Freedom and Good Life
The answer to whether good life is found in freedom also depends on ones definition of a good life and what it should include. Although the claim above is quite counterintuitive, and although it might seem erroneous, a closer look at different perspectives on a good life will show that it has a certain substance. For instance, if considering the idea of a good life as that one of peace, calm, and safety, it will obviously misalign with the definition of freedom as the continuous fight for ones rights. As the Nobel Prize speech by Malala Yousafzai showed, gaining freedom and breaking away from societal stereotypes is often fraught with significant threats, which, in more radical and tradition-oriented communities, may imply putting ones life at stake. Admittedly, Malala Yousafzai had extensive support from her family members, particularly, from her father: Thank you to my father for not clipping my wings for letting me fly ( Malala Yousafzai: Nobel Peace Prize Lecture 2014 ). However, her struggle for gaining freedom evidently takes a lot of effort and is fraught with multiple threats. Therefore, claiming that a life filled with fighting for the rights that should be inalienable in the first place is good is a rather questionable statement.
At the same time, when viewing freedom in its basic form as the ability to choose the path that one considers to be the most suitable without being judged or facing the threat of harm is an admittedly crucial, if not the most important, part of a good life. Analyzing the case of Malala Yousafzai as one of the most prominent examples of freedom representing the path to personal happiness, one must recognize the importance of the ability to make a choice as the cornerstone principle of a fulfilling and happy life. The described perspective represents a combination of social and political analysis of the problem at hand since the obstacles that Malala as a girl and a woman has been facing in receiving education and gaining influence is evidently tied to the deeply patriarchal and prejudiced culture in which she lives.
A remarkably similar idea can be found in the philosophy that Dietrich Bonhoeffer promoted in his academic analysis of the problem of racial injustice. Although the problems that Bonhoeffer was exploring given the time frame and the environment of pre-WWII Germany cannot be compared to the Z that restrict womens access to education, certain ideas can be borrowed from Bonhoeffers perspective to make conclusions about the role of freedom in ones personal happiness ( Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945 ). Outlining that Nazi Germany sought to exploit the influence of the Church to recruit more people into its cult, Bonhoeffer mentioned that the freedom of choice should remain one of the foundational social values. Specifically, Bonhoeffer declared that If non-Aryans were banned from the ministry, he argued, their colleagues should resign in solidarity and establish a new confessing church that would remain free from Nazi influence ( Dietrich Bonhoeffer ). Therefore, the idea of freedom as the right to receive education, freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to live ones life as one wants, provided that ones life choices do not infringe upon the rights of others is understandable and relatable. Moreover, the described perspective on freedom makes it an essential part of a good, happy, and fulfilling life.
Conclusion and Three Different Ways of Knowing
Although freedom as the right to be educated, be proactive in a community and have the right to expression are not the only aspects of a good life, they are doubtlessly vital components of it, as the case of Malala Yousafziai indicates. The story of Malala has shown that freedom is crucial for personal happiness and the ability to live a good life. Apart from the evidence provided in Malalas case, several ways of knowing the answer to the question under discussion have also helped to examine this issue. Specifically, the intuitive understanding of the importance of freedom for self-fulfillment, the presence of cultural values that place freedom rather high among the essential requirements for happiness, and the presence of the legal framework that lists freedom of expression, education, and speech as inalienable rights of an individual need to be mentioned. Overall, the good life can clearly be found in freedom, although other aspects of personal and professional fulfillment also need to be present to make ones life truly good.
Pakistan lies in a region that has been a subject of worldwide attention and political tensions since 9/11. The democratic government was overthrown by a military coup in 1999. A submissive government was formed in 2002 after allegedly massively rigged elections. In the past 60 years, dictatorship has ruled for more than 30 years in Pakistan. And whenever there has been parliamentary system, the civilian governments have been heavily influenced by military. In effect, military has governed Pakistan throughout 60 years. Past 8 years of dictatorship rule have brought Pakistan to a number of conflicts. Amid military operations in tribal areas, suicide bombings and political instability; human rights, freedom of press and media have also suffered greatly. With a parliament often referred to as rubber stamp and puppet , the establishment tried to crush every element which raised voice against it. In response to an attempt by the government to overthrow the bold-looking judiciary in March 2007, the country saw a massive movement of lawyers, students, journalists and civil society. Currently there are thousands of missing persons, including journalists, judges, lawyers and other civilian right activists either missing or under detention.
US influence in politics, foreign and internal policies of Pakistan has always been prominent. President Musharraf claimed in a TV interview that then US Secretary of state Richard Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan to Stone Age if American forces were not allowed to use its bases for military operations in Afghanistan following 9//11 attacks. President, as opposed to wishes of 160 million Pakistanis, single handedly took a decision to save his rule which is not strange in any dictator ruled states. It is believed that each government, whether democratic or autocratic, is formed after active US intervention. US policymakers keep a close watch on process of elections, results and formulation of governments.
Consequently, Pakistans foreign policy has been, on most occasions, a dictation from US government. At present, Pakistan is struggling for commencement of a democratic process after partially fair elections on Feb 16 2008, in which the anti-Musharraf political parties gained massive success. Amid formulation of new government, the arrival and meetings with political leaders of several US senators and others officials such as Negro Ponte have raised several questions about self reliance and independence of new government setup. One of the major reasons why the previous government setup failed to gain votes in present elections is said to be its heavily US-inspired foreign policy which led to coalition with US in war on terror, and military operations inside Pakistans western tribal areas against alleged militants.
Apart from foreign policy, issues of freedom of press, media and judiciary and terrorism are the greatest challenges lying ahead of new government. Pakistan is also facing concerns about human rights violations and women abuse. There have been positive signs in these respects. The newly elected speaker of National Assembly is a female candidate from Pakistan Peoples Party, which is mainstream successful party after elections. But the problem of abuse against women finds its roots in un-educated population in backward areas of Pakistan. The situation demands continuation of democratic process, and long term policies of education and health. Nevertheless, people have expectations from new government regarding current social issues. Several judges who were detained have been released by new government and more independent stance on war on terror is expected as opposed to US idea of use of force.
An attempt of Pettits Conception of Freedom as Anti-Power to Improve What He Sees as The Faulty Conception of Freedom in Liberalism
Philip Pettit is among the few advocates championing what he deems as republican political theory. The idea is not linked to the American republican party; instead, it is conceived from the word a republic, a term used to refer to a nation in the political arena. According to Savery and Haugaard (2016), the main idea that Pettit highlights in this theory is the notion that the contrary to freedom is never interference as many people claim, but it is slavery and the domination by arbitrary power. In other words, Pettit describes freedom as a non-domination act also referred to as anti-power.
First, there are two kinds of freedom that Pettit describes; non-interference and non-domination. For instance, a person can think that a non-dominated subject is accessible simply because the non-domination action guarantees his non-interference in the future. In short, the freedom of non-domination is just an act of defending oneself from being interfered with by another agent. For example, a slave who has an understanding master is free in the essence that the master rarely interferes with him; however, the same slave is not free because the master is dominant and can exercise arbitrary action upon the slave. Therefore, this illustration improves the faulty conception of freedom in liberalism by demonstrating that freedom is relative and every individual can define its context.
However, there are instances where there is a lack of domination, but there are high levels of interference. This is mainly common when specific laws are put in place to restrict the actions of a person. In this regard, there is interference because a person cannot exercise what they intend to do; however, in case the laws are, a person can be free because there is non-domination since there is no superior person to exhibit arbitrary action against the person (Newell, 2018). Therefore, Pettits conception of freedom as anti-power attempts to improve upon what he sees as the faulty conception of freedom in liberalism by illustrating that freedom is what people perceive. It can be applied differently depending on the situation.
A significant attribute of the republican theory is the illustration that an agent plays an essential role in defining freedom. Pettit believes that for one to determine that they are free, they have to consider the capacity of interference exercised by an agent. For example, in the case of slavery or dictatorship, someone can act upon another individual. Additionally, instances of gender violence where men threaten their wives and occasions where employers have complete authority over their employees are examples of domination. As a result, freedom as anti-power visualizes that subjects are never free even though they seem free. Therefore, it improves liberalization in that as much as people want to be free, they must act accordingly, and there should be some set guidelines that they are to follow. Luck of dominance does not mean that one person acts in a manner that infringes on others liberty. Freedom as anti-power, therefore, limits the interference but also restrains the actions of an individual.
Freedom as anti-power should be devoid of intentional actions since it cannot occur by accident. According to Pettit, interferences regarding freedom are the capability to coerce the body, will, and manipulation of a person (Savery & Haugaard, 2016). Therefore, when a person can intentionally and arbitrarily interfere with another individuals affairs, it is concluded that the individual whose affairs are interfered is not free in terms of non-dominance. Therefore, this improves the faulty conception of freedom in liberalism where one is perceived free although intentional action is subjected to the individual. Unintentional action does not determine ones ability to be free; however, actions subjected intentionally to deprive an individual of certain rights illustrate anti-power freedom. Therefore, freedom only applies in the liberal world when people willingly and knowingly give freedom to others.
Pettits conception of freedom as an anti-power attempt to improve upon what he sees as the faulty conception of freedom in liberalism demonstrates that no human is free. According to Pettit, there is nothing like liberalism freedom; in a real sense, what is viewed as liberalism freedom is more the same as republican idea (Savery & Haugaard, 2016). For example, liberalism emphasizes that the law never takes away freedom. However, considering freedom as non-interference, one gets to know that the law itself is an interference. It bars people from exercising their will. In other words, it acts as a control mechanism; therefore, liberalism never implies total freedom as many allude because freedom is in the context of what the law provides.
Pettit demonstrates that liberalization thinking illustrates that the law governs the person is free in that they are independent on their way and not under someones control. Additionally, the law in place never imposes the will on individuals but instead provides sovereignty in relation to others (Newell, 2018). Therefore, a person has private non-domination freedom provided by the law; however, the individual still needs public non-domination, being that the law is not imposed on the whim.
The Implications for Society if Anti-Power is Pursued
If anti-power is pursued in a society, the society will embrace equality and refrain from acts that can affect others. Anti-power illustrates that for a person to enjoy what is termed as absolute freedom, the individual should be sincerely protected against others (Tonello, 2020). Similarly, the individual must shelve personal freedom because everybody should have equal freedom. Therefore, society will have similar laws that apply to all people without discriminating against certain people.
Additionally, anti-power focuses on face-to-face relationships, but it also encompasses all the people who are discriminated against in society. Society has a system where people are grouped based on gender, race, religious affiliation, social class, and even age (Tonello, 2020). Therefore, if society decides to pursue the anti-power theory, it must be willing to guard not only domination over a group of people but also the structural conditions of the domination.
In conclusion, what people describe as liberal freedom is not freedom because it is guided by the laws that refrain a person from getting indulged in certain activities. Freedom is relative, and the law provides the room to chose what to do and what not to perform. In other words, people are not free because they can not act independently without being guided by certain norms in society. The standards can be laws or certain believes that the society subscribes to. A community that is willing to adopt anti-power freedom should be ready to embrace equality since freedom should apply to people in the same manner. Therefore, Pettits anti-power idea improves the faulty conception of freedom in liberalism by indicating no freedom in the world.
Savery, D., & Haugaard, M. (2016). Freedom, Power, and Relational Equality: Republican Justice in Diverse Societies [Doctoral dissertation, National University of Ireland, Galway]. NUI Galway.
Tonello, S. (2020). Resolving the Democratic Dilemma: Contestation, Anti-Power, and Democracy [Doctoral Theses, Victoria University of Wellington]. Creative Commons GNU GPL.
Freedom is a rather contradictory theme in Platos Republic. Platos overview of democracy as a political system based on freedom and liberty is not a positive one. Nowadays, a variety of people do not trust democracy as political leaders have proved them wrong. Moreover, democracy is described as being taken with arms or the use of fear that has caused the opposite party to withdraw. Since freedom directly correlates with democracy from a political standpoint, one may argue that The Republic illustrates this notion as a destructive one. While Platos quotes may be interpreted as anti-freedom, the philosopher expressed views that allow this concept to succeed under particular circumstances.
Platos Notion of Freedom
Freedom and slavery are two opposing notions that have different meanings. However, slavery is presented as the result of the most extreme form of liberty. This notion correlates with the idea that excess in one field leads to an imbalance that affects the opposing side. For example, if all people are granted complete freedom, some individuals will have more means to exercise it. If people in power have the same right as the poor, the ones on top will have more tools to use their liberties. Moreover, their liberties may and will include the exploitation of others. This is how someones freedom turns into others slavery. The narrator views freedom as something that is intrinsically unjust because absolute liberty involves total permissiveness, and if liberty is in the wrong hands, it will quickly shift into tyranny.
The Republic illustrates what may happen if liberty becomes omnipotent and replaces such notions as respect, dignity, and humility. The narrator provides examples of a son disrespecting his father and teacher who fears and flatters his scholars. In this case, the freedom of one person becomes the chains of anothers. Moreover, liberty is again portrayed as something destructive if being in the wrong hands. It is suggested that individuals are different in terms of their experiences, knowledge, intelligence, and societal status. If the student views himself as equal to his master, he will not have the desire to learn from a person who does not stand above him in terms of knowledge. Moreover, a son who thinks his father is equal to him will disregard advice and guidance, which will make it impossible for him to be a societal member in an ideal country.
In another instance, Plato presents democracy as the political system that provides people with liberty yet scolds those who use it. It is illustrated that the regime punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs. This situation shows that the concept of democracy and the freedom that correlates with it refers to a flawed narrative that liberty is the same as equality. If people are free to do whatever they want, submit to their intrinsic nature, and live their lives as they please, others will have to pay for this choice. One can live in joy and pleasure, focus on material goods, and disregard knowledge, which will still be considered freedom. However, this lifestyle correlates with the notion of oligarchy or even tyranny, which are supposedly opposed to libertarianism.
The narrator supports liberty, yet in an ideal state, it is to be controlled. The system that is described to be most effective is the aristocratic liberty that is to be implemented by individuals who have the necessary knowledge to manage the system. The narrator suggests that the rule has to be exercised by one distinguished man or by many. Since each individual is inclined to make certain decisions based on desires and inner goals, this impairs the notion of freedom in the general sense. These concepts suggest the narrator believes in aristocratic liberty within an ideal state since it is exercised by knowledgeable people with an understanding of human nature and desires.
Conclusion
While Platos vision of liberty is not currently exercised within political systems and regimes, his ideas were nuances that are still discussed and reflected upon. The author manages to captivate readers with his interesting views. Plato illustrated individual freedom as serving a purpose within an ideal state and focusing on reason rather than desires. Plato refers to liberties as mechanisms that cannot be completely balanced. The Republic reflects upon freedom and its opposite effect on tyranny as two interconnected systems that depend on each other.
Bibliography
Plato. The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Charleston, SC: Forgotten Books, 2008.
Morgan, Kathryn. Plato. In Characterization in Ancient Greek Literature, 445464. Brill, 2017.
Mounk, Yascha. The People vs Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019.
The argument about the self that Frankfurt expounds on has been one of the hotly debated concepts in Philosophy. Frankfurt puts across different ideas that try to explain why people are the way they are. The main part of his argument revolves around the fact that some people have free will, while others do not. He explains that there is a difference between one acting freely and one having the ultimate free will. Frankfurt argues that there are factors that motivate or push people to act in a certain manner as opposed to other ways available.
Frankfurt also argues that there are people who have conflicting personalities. There are also people who are born with their personality clear. He argues that genes and other biological factors determine the freedom of will and action. Frankfurts ideas summarize the reasons why there are times when one has a variety of choices, but circumstances point toward a single choice. His arguments also enable people to identify different types of agents and explain why people behave the way they do.
Frankfurt also presents the argument that there are different types of desires. One type of desire is the desire to do something. This is the desire he terms as the first order desire throughout his argument. The second type of desire is to want to do a desire. This type of desire entails having the first order desire and wanting it.
Frankfurt places the freedom of will as the first order. He continues to explain that the desires of the second order not only arise from the first order desires, but that other human beings can also affect an individuals second-order desires. He brings in the concept of second-order volitions later on in his argument. These are different from the second-order desires. Frankfurt suggests that second-order violations are geared toward making the second-order desires the individuals will.
According to Frankfurt, there are various types of personhoods. Frankfurt argues that a person is an agent who has free will. This means that this is an agent who can be identified using his/her first and second order desires. A person, therefore, wants his second order desire to be his will. He goes on and states that there are various personhoods.
These include the wanton and the unwilling addict. The wanton is not a person because they do not have second-order volitions. The wanton, therefore, does not have any desire to want to or not to want their first order desires. Another agent that he presents is the unwilling addict who has conflicting first-order desires. The willing addict, on the other hand, is an agent who cannot seem to fight or control his desires.
In his argument that there are different types of agents, he claims that there are moral persons and people who are not morally responsible. Frankfurt argues that a person should only be morally responsible for their actions if they had choices. One should not be morally responsible for their actions if they were coerced to do something, or if they did not have an open choice.
The fact that Frankfurt presents this argument begs one to question the fact that there are times when a person does something they were coerced to do, and they are still held morally responsible. There are also times when a person is morally responsible for his actions because they made a decision where one alternative solution was pronounced.
Frankfurts Arguments in the Case of the Amputees by Choice
Frankfurts arguments on moral responsibility can be applied in the case of the Amputees by Choice by Bayne and Levy. In this scenario, there were patients who visited a doctor in Scotland on different occasions and requested that one of their legs be amputated. Upon further encouragement, the doctor obliged, and the patients were very happy with the outcome. Many people started asking for leg amputations until this was stopped due to several social norms. This case brings forth Frankfurts arguments.
The Amputees by Choice can be classified as persons according to Frankfurts argument because they had the first order desires, the second order desires, and the second order volitions. The first order desire was that they desired that their legs be amputated. The second order desire was their desire to want their legs amputated. The second order volitions were their desires to make this their will, which they did by going to the doctor and had their legs removed.
According to the text, Amputees by Choice , these persons reported that they were much happier with the outcome of the amputation and that it had made their lives better months after the amputations. The amputees still used free will to make their choices, even though their choice might have surpassed all logical reason; thus, they can be termed as persons.
Frankfurt has argued that persons can be agents who do not reason at all, and the concept of a person should not be based on their ability to reason. According to the Amputees by Choice text, the amputees had health conditions that might have made them act the way they did. This could also be true for the doctor who did the amputations.
The amputees can easily be compared to the drug addicts that Frankfurt presented, with a special focus on the willing and the unwilling addicts. Looking at the willing addict, he does everything he can to quit his addiction to no avail. This is very similar to the Amputees by Choice who decide to remove their healthy limbs to have a better life due to an underlying health condition.
It can be argued that the Amputees by Choice and the drug addicts have to be morally responsible for their actions. However, this is not so using the argument that Frankfurt presents. The amputees do not have to be morally responsible for their actions. They are similar to the willing addict because other factors were responsible for their actions, even though they seem to have acted freely.
Some of the reasons that were given to explain the actions of the amputees include the fact that they were sick or had psychosexual conditions. This clearly states that there are forces that made them act the way they did. This is very similar to the willing addict who is also trying to quit his addiction, but other forces make it impossible.
The fact that the Amputees by Choice amputated their limbs freely does not, therefore, mean that they had the ultimate free will. As explained, there could have been several external factors that would have driven them to that conclusion, with or without their knowledge. This goes further to expound on Frankfurts argument on the ultimate free will and acting freely.
Conclusion
Frankfurts arguments are very applicable to the case of the Amputees by Choice . His first argument is that of persons and nonpersons. Frankfurts ideas can be applied to these agents as they are persons and not nonpersons. The fact that the amputees have second-order volitions, as explained, qualifies them as persons. Thus their behavior can be discussed using Frankfurts ideas.
The fact that there were other external forces that made the amputees make their decisions gives them a way out of not being morally responsible for their actions. The man who started the trend of amputating his healthy leg can, therefore, not be blamed for the others who followed and so forth. Frankfurt refers to the forces that made these individuals act the way they did as demons.
It can be argued that the actions of the Amputees by Choice were not based on higher-order volitions since higher order volitions are based on long assurances and reasoning. There is no logic behind the amputation of a healthy leg. Therefore, these persons did not use reason to make their choices. The mere fact that they had free will, even though it was not ultimately their choice, also echoes Frankfurts argument of free will because they went to the doctors freely.
The amputees can, therefore, be said to have acted freely without coercion. However, external factors like the health conditions explained might have left them with little choice on the decision to remove their healthy legs. In conclusion, Frankfurts arguments can be applied to almost all situations, regardless of the external factors that might take away an individuals ultimate free will.
The article Human Freedom and the Self by Roderick Chisholm offers a meaningful idea to many Christian believers. The author believes that determinism is something incompatible with a persons free will (Pojman and Vaughn 71). Although human beings have free will , they should be responsible for their ideas and actions. According to the essay, human actions should not depend on certain events or ideas. That being the case, human actions and events will always arise from previous experiences.
This fact explains why such actions cannot occur naturally or by chance. This fact explains why certain issues will encourage individuals to act in a particular manner. That being the case, the idea of agent-causation is undeniable because human actions do not result from free will . A sense of determinism does not dictate various human actions and events. Human beings do not always use their desires and beliefs to dictate their actions.
The author argues that an action can result from free will if only an individual acts depending on choices that do not arise from other happenings (Pojman and Vaughn 78). Human beings will act in a specific manner without necessarily engaging in other actions. Human actions will therefore result from different aspects or events.
This fact explains why human beings cannot act mainly from free will . This description explains how different agents will result in specific actions (Pojman and Vaughn 82). This knowledge explains why human actions are not consistent with the concept of determinism. I have therefore learned a major idea from Roderick Chisholms article. According to the author, human actions do not depend on determinism or free will .
How this Idea has Challenged Me to Think Differently about My Worldview and Values
I have gained new ideas that can make me a useful person in the society. The concept of determinism explains how different individuals act in a specific manner. Many Christians have a clear understanding of their beliefs and values. They have also used such beliefs and ideas in order to dictate their actions. The same development occurs when individuals justify their reasons for committing certain offenses.
However, the article explores the relationship between human actions and determinism. This notion encourages more people to take charge of their thoughts and actions. This approach will support the needs and expectations of many people in the universe (Pojman and Vaughn 83).
I will use the ideas presented in this article to make appropriate decisions. I will use this idea in order to promote the best actions. This knowledge and approach is necessary because human beings have free will . However, such free will should not always dictate our ideas or actions.
The above idea encourages human beings to take charge of their actions. Human beings should therefore engage in the best practices without considering their past experiences. This fact explains why the author believes strongly that free will and determinism are incompatible in nature. This knowledge has made it easier for me to view the world from all dimensions. Human beings should consider their values and beliefs.
They should also examine the nature of the universe in order to produce the most desirable actions (Pojman and Vaughn 87). This new idea has changed my view of the universe. We should therefore use our experiences in order to engage in acceptable behaviors. This approach will encourage me to change my actions. This practice will result in the most desirable outcomes. This practice will definitely make the world a better place for every person.
Works Cited
Pojman, Louis, and Lewis Vaughn. Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. London: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Philosophically, determinism refers to the belief that any event is an essential outcome of the earlier origins. The choices we make, the beliefs we hold and the actions we take are events. According to the determinist view, such events are the essential outcomes of the past origins. What occurs in nature and human behavior is the unavoidable result of the unpremeditated order.
On the other hand, freedom regards the outcome of the actions taken at an individuals free will founded on choice. It reflects on what the individual wanted to do at that particular moment (Lawhead, 2011). This essay explores four different circumstances that led to the shooting of Todd by Dave. An examination of the circumstances is based on Daves moral responsibility in view of hard determinists, Libertarians and compatibilists.
Main Body
1st Situation
In the first circumstance, hard determinists would argue that Dave was morally responsible. The rationale is that his action was an unavoidable result of the spasm originating from the undiagnosed tumor. Daves natural condition was the cause of the outcome. He should have sought the treatment for the brain condition. Libertarians would argue that Dave was not morally responsible. His situation was determined by external forces beyond his control. The spasm that originated from the tumor determined the pulling of the trigger.
Although he did not intend to shoot Todd, the outcome was inevitable as it was determined by a past force (the illness). The action did not come from his free will meaning that he would have acted otherwise if the spasm did not occur. He lacked the freedom essential to be morally responsible. Dave would not be morally responsible according to compatibilists. The rationale is that Daves action was not the outcome of who he was and what he believed, the values he held or his desires (Lawhead, 2011).
2nd Situation
In the second circumstance, hard determinists would hold Dave morally responsible for the death of Todd. His psychological condition was determined by the past events taking place during the war. Dave had a choice to pursue another career. The outcomes were determined by his life experience that shaped his psychology. Libertarians would argue that Dave was morally responsible. The rationale is that the choice to shoot the enemy was at his disposal and was devoid of casual necessity.
In this view, Dave had metaphysical freedom, and his situation was determined given that he had the aptitude to be morally responsible. Compatibilists would hold Dave morally responsible. The rationale is that his situation was determined by the circumstance prior to engaging in a brutal war. He could not control the events that took place during the war. However, he had the freedom necessary to decide whether or not to shoot the enemy despite the circumstances (Lawhead, 2011).
3rd Situation
In the third situation, determinists would hold Dave morally responsible after hypnotization by an evil psychiatrist and ordered to shoot Todd. The judgment would be based on circumstantial freedom since he had the ability and opportunity to perform the action of not visiting the psychiatrist. However, once under hypnotization, he could not make a choice whether to shoot his friend or not. The hypnotization compelled his action from external forces. The origin of the choices in this situation does not matter. Libertarians would not hold Dave morally responsible.
They would argue that he possesses metaphysical freedom. In this argument, they would assert that though he was not determined he had the freedom essential to be morally responsible. Despite the assertion, in principle Dave lacked the ability to predict the outcome of his own behavior under hypnotization hence not criminally implicated. Compatibilists would not hold Dave criminally and morally responsible. First, he was initially determined to avoid the hypnotization hence made a freewill choice. Second, he did not act out of his own free will given that he lacked circumstantial freedom to make a choice of killing Todd.
In the fourth situation, showing the gun to Todd and handling it carelessly would not make determinists hold Dave morally responsible. The argument would be made despite the fact that Dave did not realize the gun was loaded yet he pulled the trigger. They would argue that Daves intention was only to show his friend the gun. However, circumstances beyond his control that were determined by the presence of bullets in the gun were beyond his control. His intention did not include pulling the trigger of a loaded gun.
Under the compatibilists view, Dave believed that the gun was not loaded. However, the choice and action of carelessly handling the gun were the initial actions that resulted in the accidental shooting of Todd. The argument makes Dave morally responsible for Todds demise. On the other hand, libertarians would not hold Dave morally responsible. Dave did not receive praise for his action and consequently should not receive any blame for moral responsibility. The presence of the bullets was as a cause of external forces. It was not his free will to have the bullets in the gun while pulling the trigger (Lawhead, 2011).
Conclusion
I agree with determinism since it requires humans to be determined by several factors such as the environment they exist in and hereditary factors including genes. It is hence easy to understand the actions individuals take or fail to take. Determinism explains why humans are unpredictable due to various external forces that are determining actions and reactions. Given such circumstances, it is possible to evaluate whether or not an individual is morally responsible considering the circumstances of their actions and forces that drive such actions.
Reference
Lawhead, W. (2014). The philosophical approach: An interactive approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.