The ideas of free will and the abilities to choose something in accordance with personal ideas and interests are considered to be one of the major ones in many Sartres works and writing. He made wonderful attempts to unite his unbelievable and captivating ideas concerning free will and all those outside sources which may influence this will and human choice in some way.
Jean-Paul Sartre introduced one of the most idealistic understanding of freedom and the relations which happen between people under different circumstances. His ideas, suggestions, and lessons may be tracked in many popular fictional novels, and one of them is the famous Stephenie Meyers book Twilight.
This story is full of many interesting characters, and one of the most appealing to me is Isabella Swan also known as Bella. Her story and situation may be analyzed from Sartres existential perspectives in many ways: though she is free and able to make certain decisions, she is still bound by some conditions, rules, and different opinions which prevent her own happiness and love.
In her Twilight, Meyer tries to unite the ideas of freedom and choices and represents a captivating story about love, relations, and circumstances which always play a crucial role; its main character Bella and the ideas of free will have much in common with Sartres teachings because her freedom of choice cannot be destroyed by numerous external circumstances but vice versa be improved and strengthened.
To evaluate Sartres ideas about free will and the freedom of choice, it is very important to find the story that touches upon all these issues carefully, without a certain passion or predictions. The idea to analyze a popular novel by Stephenie Meyer Twilight seems to be rather powerful indeed due to several reasons.
First, the author introduces the situation when the girl, Bella, has to make a decision and choose whether it is right to develop relations with a bad guy, whose reputation, future, and past are not as clear as they have to be.
Bella spends much time in order to evaluate hew possible relations with Edward, their future, and her destiny. Second, the author underlines that many characters spend certain time to think over their actions, thoughts, and words before make them noticeable by other people. And finally, the main characters have to decide according to their personal demands and desires whether it is correct to develop the relations and cope with all challenges offered by this life and their destiny.
Sartre was one of those existential philosophers who paid much attention to freedom of choice and actions. To make his ideas clearer and more attractive, he admits that freedom is known without proof and merely by our experience of it (Hoven and Leak 79). People are free just because they feel this freedom inside; they cannot be deprived of this freedom as it is already inherent to humans.
Bella knows that she is free from everything and from anyone. She can do anything she wants because even her parents realize that her freedom is something that belongs to her only. This freedom makes it possible to observe the changes around, the cars passing by, and people looking at her (Meyer 119).
The idea of I-thou relations that is also supported by Sartre in his works may be defined in Meyers novel. This type of relations is characterized by the idea when two others meet and face a considerable line of decisions which have to be made.
I-thou and I-it relations are inherent to all living beings. Our relations to the world and to our body are intimately affected by our relation to other humans as they are bodies, it is tempting to regard interpersonal relations on the same ontological level as our relations to nature (Hoven and Leak 26).
However, the main point is that one of the main characters whose relations are under discussion is not a human being. He is a vampire, and many Sartres ideas are immediately put under a huge question. Is it correct to define I-Thou or I-It relations to human beings only?
Sartre could not even guess that much of his ideas may undergo considerable changes due to the consequences created by human development and progress. Relations between Bella and Edward are more similar to I-It, where It is regarded as the circumstance which have to bind the characters, however, which have to be neglected due to human freedom of choice and will.
In general, the idea to evaluate such a modern fiction as Twilight from Sartres existential perspectives which were introduced in the middle of the 20th century is captivating and challenging indeed. This world is constantly changing, and it is not that easy to accept all its rules and conditions.
This is why people have to be guided by their own needs and interests like Bella did it in order to get a chance to be happy, loved, and free. Even if her choice may depend on some external factors, she as well as Sartre does not want to be under the influence of these circumstances but choose her own way and be free in her choice, life, and love.
Works Cited
Hoven, Adrian and Leak, Andrew N. Sartre Today: A Centenary Celebration. Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2005.
Meyer, Stephenie. Twilight. London: Little Brown Book Group, 2006.
Decision-making is one of the most crucial activities among human beings. The activity involves the critical application of the human mind that would lead to the most significant outcome. Social institutions and structures involve similar crucial thinking for the benefit of society. Ethical theories provide the foundation of a decision-making process by providing views from which humans seek guidance. Ethics guides telling the truth, keeping promises, and helping those in need. It is ethical to fulfill moral obligations as required by law or given principles. The consequentialist ethical theories are focused on the ethical consequences of particular actions. Meanwhile, non-consequentialist ethical theories focus on doers intentions when making specific ethical decisions. Therefore, ethical theories help humans determine their ethical actions and consequences.
Kantian ethics are non-consequentialist since it is based on absolute moral imperatives. The theorys main features are autonomy of the will, categorical imperative, rational beings and thinking capacity, and human dignity. Kantian ethics is a theory of value since it values human dignity and the life of other living organisms like cats and dogs. Moreover, the approach emphasizes on moral evaluation of actions as obligatory. Therefore, Kantian ethics can be described as a theory of value and obligation. This research will explore the four main features of the Kantian theory and support the features with examples. Moreover, the paper will argue that the Kantian theory is a theory of value and obligation by drawing illustrations from its applicability.
What is Ethics?
Definition of ethics is a multifaceted question with no specific response and is sometimes confusing. However, the definition can be simplified by breaking it into two: well-founded ethical standards and developing ones. While the term ethical standards brings another complexity to the definition, it is described as the extent of doing right or wrong. Obligations, societal benefits, or specific virtues are categorized as ethical standards. For instance, the standards impose reasonable obligations to desist from corruption, stealing, assault, and any other vice condemned by society. Secondly, ethics involves a constant examination of the mentioned ethical standards to ensure that they are within the reasonable ambit and well-founded. Personal feelings, law, and various social norms are at risk of deviating from ethical considerations. Consequently, it is appropriate to examine the ethical standards constantly. Therefore, ethics refer to moral standards and their constant examination to ensure that they are well-founded.
The Kantian Ethics
Having understood the meaning of ethics, dissecting Kantian ethics is significant. The theory was developed by a German Philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, who argued that the practical rationality principle is the supreme principle of morality (Mihailov 5). The categorical imperative is the leading principle justified by all specific moral requirements. Consequently, immoral actions like murder and rape are irrational since they encroach upon the categorical imperative. According to Kant, all ethical requirements are based on rational standards that satisfy ones desires, as Thomas Hobbes argued, and external logical principles that can be reasoned, as argued by John Locke and St. Thomas Aquinas (Gorecka 2-6). Kant argued that a non-instrumental principle, conformity to the categorical imperative, is essential to rational agency. Consequently, a rational will must be regarded as free will, and the categorical imperative as the law of autonomous will. Therefore, Kantian ethics propounds that self-autonomy among human beings is the source of equal worth that deserves equal respect.
As non-consequentialists, Kantian ethics has a broad use in humanity and decision-making processes. The theory emphasizes not on the actions and the doers but the consequences of their effects on the doer. For instance, there is a perfect duty to tell the truth, even if it seems lying would help someone achieve specific goals that are beneficial to them. Moreover, the theory holds on respect to living organisms and prohibits the conduct of scientific test research on human beings and animals. For instance, vaccination tests on human beings are disrespectful even if it yields benefits to the entire society. Like any other ethical theory, Kantian ethics was criticized by various scholars and philosophers. G.W.F Hegel critiqued Kants arguments for insufficiently providing in his theory for decision-making and for denying human nature (Roupa 8-13). Meanwhile, some religious criticism of the theory includes the Catholic Churchs argument that the theory is contradictory since it regards Christian ethics as compatible with virtue ethics.
Elements of Kantian Theory to Ethics
The Kantian ethics place humans at the center of any decision-making process. The theory regards human existence and its capacity as a guiding norm in understanding moral conduct. Consequently, the approach is built on four core elements: autonomy of the will, categorical imperative, rational beings, rational thinking capacity, and human dignity and humanity as an end to itself. Although the theory gives insufficient information, it can be used to create norms and rules for practical implementation. Moreover, Kantian ethics has been used as a reference point in creating institutions like the United Nations that recognize the universality of human rights (Volpe 220-223). Therefore, the theorys four core elements summarize the applicability of Kantian ethics.
The Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative underpins every moral judgment and helps determine moral duties. Consequently, human beings understand that an actions morals in international society are judged based on the underlying rules. Therefore, the categorical imperative refers to perfect moral rules capable of universalization. A universal moral rule has an intrinsic value that describes objectives and constraints on conduct those human beings desire or not. In the book, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (4:393), Kant states, It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a goodwill. Therefore, as argued by Kant, the categorical imperative is conformity with the moral law. However, his argument is different from the consequentialist theorists who argued that a good will is the one that produces the best possible state of affairs.
Unlike other rules of action, the categorical imperative informs human beings what they are obliged to do regardless of circumventing conditions. Kant argues that there is an imperative which, without being based on, and conditioned by, any further purpose to be attained by a certain line of conduct, enjoins this conduct immediately (Kant 4:429). The other rules of actions dissimilar to the categorical imperative were described as hypothetical imperative. For instance, getting something to eat if someone is hungry and does not have any binding obligation is a hypothetical imperative since it tells someone what to do if certain other conditions are satisfied. Contrary to the hypothetical imperatives, the categorical imperatives immediately enjoin conduct. Therefore, the hypothetical imperatives are incapable of universalization since they are based on personal free will and subjective desires without constraints. Kantian categorical imperative includes a duty not to steal and a general duty not to harm others. For instance, the duty not to steal is morally right since it enhances trust, secures ownership, and helps human beings know what belongs to them. Although the categorical imperative explains how human beings identify universal rules, it does not explain why they should will them to become universal law.
Autonomy of the Will
Every rational being wishes to act in their interest and capability. Moreover, every society acts in the interest of its people and their ability. Kant argued that autonomy of the will is the property the will has of being a law of itself. According to Kant, the will is the thought of as a faculty of determining itself to act under the representation of certain laws, and such faculty can be found only in rational beings (Willascheck 40-50). Kants averments make the qualification of a personal will chaotic since everyone may act as they wish. However, he supports his argument with the universal formula: any rule must be capable of universalization. In his book The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he explains, never to choose except in such a way that in the same volition the maxims of your choice are also present in universal law (Kant 4:391). Although Kant proposes human free will and actions, they are only permitted if they can be universalized.
Moreover, according to Kant, rule-making should be free of personal desires and interests. However, it is impossible to legislate without relying on personal desires and inclinations, and legislators succumb to personal interests. Kant objected to the functionality of personal desires in a will and stated that personal desires and motives are just part of the deliberative process. If the motives are consistent with rules capable of universalization, then they can be permitted. The autonomy of the will concept becomes more muddled since how will one know that a personal motive is capable of being universalized? However, Kants arguments can be understood in simple terms: any legislator makes law with an understanding that they are also subject to such a law in question. Therefore, no legislator would make a law that would be prejudicial to themselves but for their benefit and society. In conceptualizing the autonomy of the will, Kant advocated for universal government: the kingdom of ends (Kant 4:433). Perhaps the formation of the United Nations and the making of general rules of international laws borrowed Kants concept.
Rational Beings and Rational Thinking Capacity
Emmanuel Kant used rational being as the primary agent in rule-making. Rationality in human beings refers to the capability to understand and reason causing an action or conduct (Kant 4:488). Kant proposed four features of a rational being: capacity to understand and reason, set and be subjective universal rules, practical reasoning, and deliberative and self-reflective capacity (Kant 4:453). Human beings can think and set ends, objectives, justifications, and reasons for specific actions. While only rational beings can legislate, they can only do that with free will. Therefore, Kant suggested that coercion cannot be used to make rational being legislate. In his book, Kant states, reasons create the idea of spontaneity, which could start to act from itself, without needing to be preceded by any other cause that determines it to act according to the law of casual connection (Foreman 50-67). Therefore, deliberative capacity allows rational beings to make decisions with the feeling that they are free o do so.
Judgments are crucial for social and interactional competencies since they enable rational beings to decide whether a particular thing falls within a general rule. Therefore, human beings can acquire knowledge through analytical judgments and synthetic judgments. While the predicate of analytical judgments is contained in the subjects concept, it is external to the subject in the synthetic judgments. Moreover, the predicate adds something new to the rational beings conception of it in the synthetic judgments (Kant 4:445). Synthetic and analytical judgments enable human beings to understand concepts like freedom and autonomy of free will without prior knowledge.
Human Dignity and Humanity as An End in Itself
Kantian ethics is described as transcendent value-based ethics since it encourages humans to treat humanity as an end to itself. A transcendent value is a value that surpasses all variances and unifies a group (Kant 4:391). According to Kant, treating humanity as an end to itself means recognizing and upholding the status and value of human dignity. Therefore, humanity is a representation of objective ends, not relative ends. Unlike the objective ends, relative ends are based on personal desires, wants, and ambitions and are replaceable (Kant 4:428). For instance, personal ambitions of becoming a doctor can be replaced with the equivalent of becoming a pharmacist. Meanwhile, objective ends like respect for human life and privacy cannot be replaced with any other end. Therefore, human dignity is an objective end that can be universalized and cannot be replaced by relative ends like ambitions.
Human dignity is a concept that has gained universalization and is included in the international customary laws. For instance, article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights (Ramcharan 23). The concept is significant in deontology since it enables the integration of morality beyond an individual, group, or society to accommodate the broader world. Consequently, the legislators devise prospective and aspirational rules of what humanity aims for. Moreover, human dignity is an intrinsic value possessed by all human beings and is not based on their characteristics. Therefore, human dignity and humanity as an end to itself are significant for rule-making processes.
Plausibility of the Kantian Ethics
Theory of Value
Value theory, in axiology, is any theory that examines how, why, and to what degree humanity can value things and objects. The value ascribed to a particular object or subject of the human being can either be intrinsic or instrumental value (Keitsch 829). While intrinsic value is worth for having itself and not as a means to something else, instrumental value is worth having as a means of getting something good (Willascheck 45-49). An example of an object with instrumental, extrinsic value has a smartphone for communication. Kantian ethics, like the Utilitarian theory, ascribes to intrinsic value. Kant only thought of an intrinsic value as having moral worth for its own sake to be goodwill. The categorical imperative as a fundamental law of morality places intrinsic value on actions that are of free will and universal. Moreover, the theory places an intrinsic value on human dignity that must be respected regardless of other pleasures that comes with driving it out. Therefore, Kantian ethics is a theory of intrinsic value on categorical goods and not extrinsic value.
Theory of Obligation
An obligation is a multifaceted term that has legal and moral meaning. While moral obligation arises out of right or wrong considerations, legal obligations arise from principles or laws governing society. For instance, it is a legal obligation not to over-speed in certain countries. Unlike legal obligation, moral obligation emanates from ascribing certain intrinsic values to things. According to Kantian ethics, human dignity and goodwill are categorical imperatives with intrinsic values. Consequently, human beings are obliged to respect human dignity for their own sake. Moral obligation can only be applied to those rules that have universality. For instance, it is a moral obligation not to steal since stealing is detrimental to society and the thief himself. rational beings formulated the stated moral obligations based on rational thinking. International instruments have adopted Kantian moral obligations to develop international customary law. Therefore, Kantian ethics is a legal obligation due to its universal moral obligation.
Conclusion
Ethical theories are significant in giving moral perspectives on various decisions that affect humanity. The theories define the kinds of moral obligations bestowed on human beings due to their uniqueness of rational thinking. Kantian ethics is an example of ethical theory that is obligatory and centered on intrinsic values. The theorys four main features are autonomy of free will, the categorical imperative, rational beings and rational thinking capacity, and human dignity and humanity as an end to itself. The four elements distinguish the theorys argument from other theories in that it is centered on the rational being and intrinsic value of the human subject. The Kantian theory imposes moral obligations adopted to become international customary laws. Placing an intrinsic value on humanity, Kantian ethics argues that it is immoral to disrespect human dignity. Therefore, Kantian ethics is a theory of obligation and value.
Works Cited
Forman, David. Kant on the Moral Law as the Causal Law for Freedom. Kant-Studien, vol. 113, 2022, pp. 40-83.
Keitsch, Martina. Structuring ethical interpretations of the sustainable development goalsConcepts, implications and progress. Sustainability, vol. 10, 2018, p. 829.
Mihailov, Emilian. Measuring Impartial Beneficence: A Kantian Perspective on the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2022, pp. 1-16.
Ramcharan, Bertrand. Universality. The Protection Role and Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Brill Nijhoff, 2022, pp. 13-38.
Volpe, Valentina. The Importance of Being Earnest. The United Nations and Democracy-Promotion. Mentoring Comparative Lawyers: Methods, Times, and Places. Springer, Cham, 2020, pp. 219-235.
Willaschek, Marcus. Kant on the sources of metaphysics: The dialectic of pure reason. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Democracy is the basis of the political systems of the modern civilized world. Democratic countries, with rare exceptions, are by far the most economically developed, and citizens standard of living is the highest in them. Whether freedom is a necessary and sufficient condition for well-being has been debatable for hundreds of years. The dispute between Plato and Socrates is the foundation of Western philosophy. Hence, it is essential to scrutinize whether the focus on freedom is deficient in influencing democracy.
Socrates defended democracy, while Plato criticized it; these oppositions gave birth to continuous disputes. Democracy was the system developed in Athens under Pericles.; the decision was made by voting of free adult male citizens. Women and enslaved people, in turn, did not have the right to vote (Cooper 1156). The system differs significantly from modern democracy in its voting structure. It is vital to note that not all people have the right to vote. Accordingly, the democracy of Athens was direct that is, without the choice of representatives, in contrast to how it is generated nowadays. Athenians would probably call a modern democracy an oligarchy the rule of the rich.
The basis of Platos criticism was the lack of competence of the people responsible for making decisions in a democracy. His famous quote compares democracy to allowing passengers to steer a ship in a storm (Cooper 1160). Plato insisted that the main danger of democracy is its transformation into an ochlocracy that is, the power of the mob (Cooper 1160). Ordinary people can be easily fooled by beautiful slogans and generous promises, resulting in a tyrant coming to power.
This issue subjects many individuals to political vulnerability even nowadays. Through populism, unscrupulous politicians gain power. Many autocrats got their positions by manipulating public opinion and taking advantage of underdeveloped democratic institutions. According to the book, the wrong leader in the democratic city leads to overall decay (Cooper 1173). In critical situations, such as wars, democracies are much less agile and capable of making quick decisions. In many areas, the average citizen is not competent. Therefore, it becomes feasible to manipulate social consciousness using economic unawareness, which can cause inappropriate decision-making in power structures.
It is essential to clarify if freedom at the heart of democracy can worsen individuals lives. Platos main argument fails because he assumes by default that there are some objectively appropriate solutions to the problems the state faces. It is valid for specific cases, such as an economic crisis or a pandemic. However, in numerous politically strained situations making a single coherent choice can be struggling. Instead, there are many alternative options, each with benefits and drawbacks for different populations. Democracy is one of the few regimes considering the interests of different groups of the population. At the same time, alternative forms of government, such as totalitarianism or dictatorship, are more likely to support the interests of a single group.
Overall, it can be concluded that freedom is not a flaw of democracy. Democracy is a competitive environment where ideas have to fight for survival. Rational ideas can be displaced; indeed, it is not a severe issue of the given regime. Under other systems of government, rational ideas will become obsolete. Although the democratic regime is a field for competition, individuals who strive for prosperity tend to defeat it.
Work Cited
Cooper, John M. (ed). Plato: Complete Works. Indianapolis, Cambridge: Hackett Publ.Co., 1997.
Every event has a cause, and free actions are possible. However, these beliefs are not necessarily compatible. Understanding such concepts as cause and effect is needed to comprehend how this world functions. We assume that every happens because of a specific reason and that the effects of that event can be traced back to the cause. In destiny, predestination and free will intertwine and equally influence the course of our evolutionsomething we cannot avoid and change by our will and understanding. In fact, predetermination and freedom of choice are not mutually exclusive but perfectly complement each other. I believe that every phenomenon in nature, every event in our lives, is a natural consequence of a specific reason what happened or what we did before.
At the same time, free actions are possible. In other words, we have the ability to act independently of any outside forces. This belief is based on the idea that people are free to make all of their decisions. Our environment or circumstances do not solely determine them. While these two beliefs can co-exist, they do not necessarily have to be compatible. While it is true that every event has a cause, this cause is only sometimes clear. We may not know what led to an event, or we may not be able to trace the events origin back to its cause. Likewise, while we can make our own decisions, our environment and circumstances may still influence our decisions. For example, we may not be able to choose a course of action if we lack the resources or knowledge to do so. Therefore, every our thought, action, or reaction to an event becomes a cause that generates new consequences, new actions, and new events.
In conclusion, every event has a cause, and free actions are possible. However, these beliefs are not necessarily compatible. While they can co-exist, the cause of an event may not always be clear, and our environment or circumstances may still influence our decisions.
Rousseau and Mill were political philosophers with interest in understanding what entailed individual freedom. Nevertheless, the two do not share common views regarding individual liberty. Mill perceives individual liberty as freedom of self-control in a mutual context (Mill 11). He focuses on the development of mans ethical character through psychological, social, and political liberty. Mill believes that everyone in the society is bound by an equal measure of personal freedom. Hence, the main reason why people come together in the society is to ensure that they do not infringe into others liberty.
In addition, Mill has the conviction that the society works to maintain its advancement and prevent its extermination, by giving room for an open personal expression. On the other hand, Rousseau views individual freedom as comprising of a collective body bound by a general will (Rousseau 3). This paper compares Rousseaus idea of individual freedom with Mills idea.
Rousseau vs. Mill
According to Mill, a belief is insignificant if it is only approved as a fact without being comprehended by those who embrace it. He elucidates, There is only too great a tendency in the best beliefs and practices to degenerate into the mechanical& (Mill13). Mill claims that to curb this issue, a belief should be discussed fearlessly, regularly, and completely. Otherwise, people will consider it a dead doctrine.
Mill claims that for any truth to apply to an individual, one has to use his or her views and judgment in ascertaining the truth. He believes that the veracity of any opinion makes part of its usefulness and no opinion that is against the truth can be of any use. Consequently, Mill believes that for individuals to trust in any opinion, it has to be of significance to them. Moreover, people are different, and thus truth ought to vary from one person to another (Mill13).
Based in these postulations, Mill holds that limiting individual freedom means rendering the entire society inert and inhibiting its progress. Progress comes from allowing individual liberties like personal expression. Allowing individual freedom gives a society a wider range of opinions and ideas to choose from, thus encouraging growth. Conforming to traditions without understanding their values does not facilitate personal development.
Consequently, individual freedom is identical to individual growth. Mill claims that when a person values him or herself, s/he is in a better position to be of significance to others (Mill15). He asserts that through personal development, an individual develops the entire society.
Mill claims that to understand how individual freedom facilitates in social bonding, one ought to understand the interaction between individuals and the state. Mill posits, The individual is not accountable to society for its actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself (21). Besides, individual freedom, just like other freedoms, surpasses all other authorities.
Therefore, individuals are allowed an open exercise over them in Mills principle. Mill is categorical that the law should not enforce itself, for example on a person acting in a manner criticized by others, since s/he has the ideal liberty to act and bear the cost of his or her actions as long as the actions do not infringe into the freedom of others. The society only takes control of individual freedom if an individuals actions tend to violate the societys freedom.
Rousseau views the general will as the foundation of freedom, justice, and order in the society (Rousseau 3). He believes that the general will is superior in the manner that it differentiates the will of individuals. The general will cannot wish or injure itself since it comprises people it affects, and thus all its interests are in congruence with the interests of the people. For Rousseau, general will always comes up with decisions that are beneficial to all (Rousseau 4). In addition, it derives its generality from the mutual interests that unite people and not from the number of voices.
Hence, popular vote can facilitate in making effective determinations. Rousseau claims that in spite of the general will, every person remains independent. Although the general will determines what is right, individuals have voluntarily opted to embrace it, thus remaining their own masters. More particularly, the common dedication amongst all people is such that, & in fulfilling it & a man cannot work for others without at the same time working for himself (Rousseau 5). However, it is hard for an individual to detach himself or herself from the general will. This aspect inhibits individualism, as one has to obey the rules of the general will.
The better regime
Evaluating the two regimes, one may claim that they both have their benefits and limitations. Although Rousseaus regime would promote social cohesion as people come together to address common interests, the system would be prone to resistance from its members. In spite of people sharing some common will, they might also have private will that differs with the general will.
In such a case, the regime would encounter stiff opposition as people seek to have space to attend to their private will, which in a way might violate the established general will. Moreover, the dedications that bring people together in Rousseaus regime are mandatory only since they are communal. It would be hard for one to leave the social body should he or she cease to share mutual interests with others. In such a case, the affected person would not enjoy his or her freedom since s/he would remain in the group unwillingly.
Mills regime is better as compared to Rousseaus regime. The regime not only gives room for personal rights, but also provides the mechanism to safeguard these rights. Such a regime encourages commitment from the society. In a situation where one is not constrained by anything apart from the effects of his actions on others, it is possible for an individual to pursue his or her personal goals without interference.
A regime that calls for people to observe mutual interests not only frustrates individuals effort to pursue personal goals, but also inhibits innovation. Every person works towards improving his or her living standards. Consequently, individuals would be willing to go a step further to come up with innovations to help them to pursue their goals. Nevertheless, if people were required to ensure that their innovations are in line with the needs of everyone in the society or a set of regulations agreed upon by the entire society, they would be discouraged from pursuing their goals in fear of violating the established regulations.
Without individuality, it is hard to accomplish individual liberty in society. I would rather be a citizen in Mills regime. The fact that this regime promotes individuality makes it possible for individuals in the society to uphold social order. In a bid to pursue personal goals, one has to enjoy personal liberty as well as peace. In Mills regime, people would work hard to preserve their freedom and avoid infringing into the freedom of others. Hence, such a society would coexist in harmony. Mills regime would promote individual freedom, order, and justice. In such an environment, it is possible for an individual to make significant steps towards development.
Conclusion
Rousseau and Mill present two opposing views about individual liberty. They put forward two regimes that perceive individual liberty in different dimensions. Rousseaus regime perceives liberty in the form of the general will that brings individuals together to work towards achieving mutual interests.
On the other hand, Mills regime perceives individual liberty as independent with every person having a set of personal interests and goals. Mill believes that individual freedom brings people together as they seek to come up with measures to make sure that they do not infringe into the freedom of others.
The main limitation of Rousseaus regime is that it is susceptible to opposition from the members due to conflict of interests. Moreover, the regime discourages innovation and individual growth as mutual interests bind all members.
On the other hand, Mills regime has numerous benefits. The regime allows individuals to pursue personal interests as long as the interests do not interfere with the freedom of others. Hence, Mill offers a better regime that can foster not only personal growth, but also societal growth.
Works Cited
Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics, London: Penguin Classics, 2004. Print.
Aristotle. The Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, New York: Hackett Pub Co., 1995. Print.
Mill, John. On Liberty and Other Writings: Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract, London: Penguin Books, 1968.Print.
Various voices have contributed to the issue of American freedom and the accompanying hardships. One of such voices is Patrick Henry who uttered this famous phrase over two hundred years ago, give me liberty or give me death (Heerak 45). Since then, this phrase has been used in various forms of struggles including the struggle of African Americans against the American slave trade.
America is synonymous with leading the way in the fight for various forms of freedom. This is probably the reason why America is referred to as the land of the free . Freedom in America is held in high esteem. The journey to this freedom has also been preserved through various forms of art in the course of the countrys history. This art includes various forms of literature such as poems, short stories, and novels.
For many groups of Americans, the road to freedom has been characterized by treacherous tribulations. This is true for the African Americans who fought hard to earn their freedom from slavery. Various authors have highlighted elements of slavery and freedom through various books. Toni Morrison adds her voice to the issue of enslavement and freedom using her book Beloved .
Her book chronicles the events surrounding a group of slaves living in Cincinnati, Ohio after they attain freedom from enslavement in Kentucky. Morrison has often said that this book is a dedication to the over sixty million Africans who died during the slave trade even without having to experience enslavement (Taylor 143). It is clear that the author seeks to make this book a tribute to the slavery experience.
This is evident from the novels ending where the author gives a disclaimer against the story disappearing like the experiences of the slaves who perished during slavery. Beloved is a postmodern novel that is able to uncover aspects of freedom and slavery that seem to have been lost in the course of history. This paper will analyze freedom and enslavement as presented by Morrison in Beloved .
Beloved was written in 1987 many years after slavery had been abolished. This enables the author to cover the journey from enslavement to freedom authoritatively. The main protagonist in the story is a former slave Sethe, who is living with her daughter Denver in her mother-in-laws haunted house in Cincinnati. In this story, various characters describe what freedom means to them.
In the beginning of the story, Baby Suggs talks about her choice not to love her children. She attributes this choice to the fact that men and women are moved around like checkers (Morrison 27). She explains this lack of freedom by detailing her separation from her first and second children. However, her persistence paid off when her third child, Halle was not taken away and was able to buy her freedom.
She also says that by the time Halle bought her freedom, she had already given up and this freedom did not mean a thing (Morrison 28). Baby Suggs shows how the value of freedom diminished with each year of enslavement. By the time she acquires the freedom she has longed for her whole life, it has already lost its meaning.
Morrison is of the view that many people are quick to acknowledge freedom from slavery but they are also quick to forget the actual victims of slavery. In Baby Suggs case, freedom has come a bit late for her because the damage is already done. She has lost all contact with two of her children and not even her freedom can help her find them.
The main protagonist, on the other hand, talks about her freedom and the liberties it accorded her. Sethe tells Paul D that the love for her children was only triggered by the freedom from slavery. She says that once she was able to get to Cincinnati from Kentucky she was able to love her children more. When Sethe talks about this love, she says, I couldnt love em proper in Kentucky because they werent mine to love (Morrison 190).
When explaining this love further she says that once she arrived in Cincinnati she was at liberty to love anyone she wanted to love. This exchange explains what lack of freedom meant for the enslaved African American women. The fact that Sethe has the ability to love surprises Paul D to the extent that he does not understand how she could kill her child and blame it on love.
According to Sethe, the fact that the freedom she had just acquired was about to be taken away, was what drove her to commit infanticide. The fact that Sethe had come to a place where she could love anything and anyone that she wanted, represented true freedom.
Morrison illustrates the overwhelming nature of this freedom through Sethes actions. For Sethe, it is either she gets freedom or death. Her experiences as a slave were enough motivation for her to commit infanticide and probably suicide. While many Americans causally talk about freedom, very few would make the choice Sethe made.
All of Morrisons characters in Beloved have no secrets. The author explores even the innermost thoughts of the books characters. This enables the readers to understand the characters in Beloved fully. This total comprehension of characters translates into total comprehension of the issues of freedom and enslavement.
The readers are able to learn the unspoken truths about slavery. Historians define these truths as the questions or things the fugitives and slaves did not ask or say. For instance, the author reveals Sethes inner struggle with the past in her bid to have a livable life (Morrison 73). By presenting her characters in an open manner, the author is able to dig deeper into the issues of enslavement and freedom.
The book portrays slaves as if they are prey to be caught by their masters, the law, and the enforcers. The third person narrator reveals that the white slave owners view Sethe and her lot as prey to be hunted. This inhumane treatment of slaves was the hallmark of slavery. Armed with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Sheriff, the slave-catcher, Schoolteacher, and his nephew arrive to reclaim ownership of Sethe and her two children.
The author compares their actions to those of hunters. Their thoughts and their inhumane considerations are revealed while they sneak up on Sethe. According to the narrator while a dead snake or bear had value, a dead nigger could not be skinned for profit and was not worth his own dead weight in coin (Morrison 148). M
oreover, the inhumane treatment that Sethe received at Sweet Home was so overwhelming that the likelihood of going back there almost renders her insane. She is convinced that by killing her children, she is setting them free from such inhumane conditions. This high price of freedom is only made possible by the existing conditions. Morrison devotes this book to more than sixty million people who died as a result of slavery (Taylor 144).
Sethes daughter, Beloved can be included in this category because she never experienced slavery but died because of it. Historians have recorded stories of slaves who jumped overboard on the way to their enslavement destinations. According to Morrison, these people are easily forgotten although they were part of the pursuit of freedom.
Morrison also explores the issue of partial or nominal freedom from slavery. The author details Sethes life beginning from 1873 ten years after slavery had been abolished. This is around the time she reunites with Paul D at her residence in 124 Bluestone Road. Although Sethe is legally free, she is still bound by other factors such as the baby ghost that resides in her house. She is also the subject of isolation from the rest of her community.
The author is trying to illustrate African Americans lack of freedom from the ghosts that were borne from slavery. As a member of Sethes past, Paul D expects to find only freedom at Sethes household. His first activity is to admonish the baby ghost in the hope of setting Sethe free but the ghost still returns in a new form.
This is the nature of freedom; even when one expects to attain freedom from something, ghosts from ones past can still compromise this freedom. This was a real concern for most African Americans in their quest for various forms of freedom after slavery.
The author of Beloved is able to highlight the issues of freedom and enslavement in this prolific novel. The book explores various aspects of freedom and its price during and after the slavery era. The book is a dedication to the beloved or the over sixty million people who lost their lives to slavery even without having to experience enslavement. The author is also able to weave together the issues of slavery and freedom.
Works Cited
Heerak, Christian. Toni Morrisons Beloved as African-American Scripture & Other Articles on History and Canon. New Jersey, NJ: Hermit Kingdom Press, 2006.Print.
Morrison, Toni. Beloved, New York, NY: Everymans Library, 2006. Print.
Taylor, Danille. Conversations with Toni Morrison, Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1994. Print.
The freedom of expression is an essential concept that guarantees the democratic rights and freedoms of the citizens. This freedom ensures an unlimited right to wholly express oneself in matters of public affairs as it is provided in the First Amendment. However, this freedom has never been absolute. The justices argue that this freedom of expression should be limited as a shield to possible dangers.
It should be noted that only two justices have upheld the literal interpretation of the First Amendment clause. In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S 1 (1949), Justice William ODouglas held his ground as an advocate of the First Amendment clause when he overturned the conviction of a religious leader who had been accused of making anti-semitic statements in a public rally. This decision did not auger well with some of the justices who held dissenting views by arguing that the court was going out of its way to reverse the conviction. Justice Felix Frankfurters, in his written dissent for instance, expressed his concern by arguing that the decision was likely to cause a power imbalance between the state and the federal court. Justice Hugo Black seemed to echo the sentiments of Justice William in his decision to allow the newspaper to continue with its publication in New York Times Co. V. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (Smith 20).
It is evident that the courts have evaluated the freedom of expression on a case-to-case basis. The proper limit of expression was evidenced in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S 47 (1919) in which the court supported the conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917. The court further concluded that the defendant was not protected by the First Amendment. The decision of this court established the test of clear and present danger that seems to gain popularity in subsequent court decisions such as Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). However, the decisions in this cases were overhauled in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), a landmark case in which the court ruled that the government had no right to punish abstract advocacy. The case saw the opinion by the per curiam majority overhaul the Clear and present danger test to adopt the imminent lawless action test (Farish 56).
It is evident that the evolution of standards that the court has adopted to evaluate the freedom of expression leaves a lot to be desired. The courts should establish precise standards to allow more freedom in the interpretation of First Amendment instead of relying on the liberal approach. Only then will the freedom of expression achieve its absolute nature.
The freedom of press is guaranteed under the First Amendment. The ability by the press to be accorded absolute freedom by the government is very crucial in a democratic and free society. The court has attempted to define the role of the press in the society. In Lovell v. City of Griffith, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), the press was defined as a vehicle of information and opinion. Chief Justice Hughes continued to argue that the freedom of press is subject to certain restrictions and is therefore not absolute. Such restriction was upheld in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) in which the court held that the First Amendment did not grant a journalist the liberty to decline a subpoena from a jury (Cornwell 102).
There are certain instances that the court places restrictions on the press freedom. Such circumstances are denied the protection of the First Amendment. The most notable circumstance to which the court restricts the press is the use of obscene materials. This is in a bid to uphold the social morality in the society. The court in Ruth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) ruled that any publication of obscene material was illegal and did not deserve any special treatment. The other circumstance relates to any publication of materials that seem to promote child pornography. The Fourth Amendment does not protect anyone who publishes such materials that seem to depict sexual connotation in a minor. The restriction on content is another instance that the court places a restriction on the press freedom. The court in Watts v. United States, 394 U.S 705 (1969) ruled that any content that contained a genuine threat can be prohibited. In applying this restriction, the court relies on the doctrine of strict scrutiny which basically allows the court to restrict any content that it deems dangerous to the public interest. The doctrine of strict scrutiny was further upheld in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tomilio, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) in which the court refused to treat this restriction with any sympathy.
It is important to note that the state can place restriction through prior restraint. The court applies strict measures to evaluate laws that compel prior restraint on speech. One way is through evaluating the prohibited speech and to assess whether it creates imminent danger that could threaten the peace and the states legitimate interests. This is because the prohibited activity is suppressed before it is determined whether it is protected by the First Amendment. This was the argument in Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburg commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S 376 (1973). However, there are instances that the court has allowed the doctrine of prior restraint. The justices have written in dictum that the conventional doctrine is not applicable to commercial speech and the courts have been burdened with the task to establish whether it does (Lidsky and Wright 56). It has been established by the courts that the doctrine indeed applies to commercial speech. In addition, prior restraint is permissible in instances of preliminary injunctions and cases dealing with intellectual property.
Works Cited
Cornwell, Nancy. Freedom of the Press: rights and liberties under the law. New York: ABDO Publishing Company, 2004. Print.
Farish, Leah. The First Amendment: Freedom of speech, religion and the press. New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1998. Print.
Lidsky, Lyrissa and Wright, George. Freedom of the Press: a reference guide to the United States Constitution. California: Preager Publishers, 2004. Print.
Smith, Rich. First Amendment: The Right of Expression. New York: ABDO Publishing Company, 2007. Print.
Voices of freedom is a documentary of American freedom that explores the early days of European exploration and settlement. The various biographies included in the book reflect how different Americans during the course of history have defined the aspect of freedom in terms of viewing it in a political, religious, economic and personal context.
The book covers various periods in American history and the specific discussions on freedom during these periods. The history of the country is made up of debates, disagreements and struggles for freedom that have seen the Civil War, and the Cold War which have changed the idea of freedom in the US.
The freedom of particular American citizens was also addressed because of the lack of freedom, slavery and the lower positions that women held in society (Foner xvii). The voices of freedom that will be focused on will be President Woodrow Wilson and his focus on new freedom in America (1912), Randolph Bournes idea of a Transnational America (1916), and President Franklin Roosevelt and the four Freedoms (1941).
President Woodrow Wilsons election to power gave him an opportunity to carryout radical reforms in the American government. With support from the Democratic Party and the bipartisan progressives, President Wilson was able to initiate reforms and policies that would change the American system of governance during the period of 1912 to 1916.
The president formulated domestic progressive policies which were referred to as New Freedom that would see a reduction on the high tariffs imposed on imported, a change in the banking system and the Sherman Act that dealt with combat antitrust laws in America. His election to office allowed him the opportunity to reconstruct the poor performing Democratic Party that had lacked good leadership (Foner 45).
President Wilson first dealt with the issue of high tariffs as part of his New Freedom plan for America. The proposal to reduce the high tariff rates imposed on imported goods was a hotly contested topic in the House of Representatives with the Republicans providing a strong opposition since they helped passed the Payne Aldrich Tariff that saw imported goods having a 40 percent taxation rate.
The Republicans argued that the high tariff rate was meant to protect the domestic manufacturers of goods and commodities from international competition. The overall impact of the high tariff was that goods or products in America were retailing at an extremely higher price when they should have been sold at a low price (Foner 106).
Even before he was elected to office, President Wilson had felt that the high tariffs would harm the American economy and also affect the livelihoods of the average American during that period. The only beneficiaries of the high tariffs were the business owners and manufacturers in America who sold their products at a high price. Americans were forced to spend a lot of money on these highly priced goods some of which were basic commodities and were likely to have been sold at a lower price.
To show his commitment to the New Freedom plan that would see the high tariffs being reduced, Woodrow announced his intentions to revise the Payne-Aldrich Tariff plan in the US Congress, an action that no president before him had undertaken since the early 1800s. President Wilsons plan saw the birth of the Underwood Act enacted by Congress that would reduce the high tariffs imposed on imported goods to twenty five percent.
The Underwood Act saw the elimination of tariffs on essential commodities like sugar, wool, clothing and steel that were imported into the country. In addition, this particular law brought about a centralized income tax that was legalized immediately after the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution was approved a just few months before the Underwood Act came into force (Wunder par. 5, and 6)
The bill however faced some opposition from the Republicans who contested lowering the tariff rates from 40% to 25% an act that would increase international competition for commodities within the country. Wilson however piled pressure on the House of Representatives to pass the Act.
The bill was passed into law in 1913 by the House and the Senate. Its passage was viewed to be a victory for President Wilson and it encouraged him to continue pursuing the other New Freedom reforms one of which involved reforming the national banking system. This activity however proved to be much more difficult than the tariff plan (Foner 106).
The federal banking system had become very inefficient after being plagued with inefficiencies and near collapse incidences after it was established during the Civil War. All the representatives of the House agreed that the federal banking system needed to undergo some changes but the proposals that were to be used to implement the reforms brought about disputes amongst the Democrats and Republicans.
One proposal that brought about debate and disputes in the House was to create smaller banks that would be used to control the central bank. Both the Democrats and the Republicans rejected this proposal with the Democrats arguing that the federal government lacked the power and control to manage these smaller banks while the Republicans who had support from wealthy financiers and American bankers argued that the proposal was of a socialist nature (Foner 106).
President Wilson supported the idea and recommended that a Board of Governors should be established to govern the federal bank. This proposal was also met with a lot of disputes and arguments from both sides of the House. The two sides of the house however reached a compromise that saw the Federal Reserve Act coming into force in 1913.
The Federal Reserve Act saw the formation of new banking systems in America that included the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Reserve Board and many smaller branches of the central bank. The creation of the new banking system was noted as Wilsons greatest domestic achievement (Wunder par.8).
The next reform was to strengthen Americas antitrust laws. President Wilson did this by proposing a series of bills that would be used to strengthen the Sherman Act that had been formulated by President Theodore Roosevelt.
The main purpose of the Sherman Act was to regulate the prices of commodities in the country. However, only a few of these bills were enacted into laws. President Wilson faced criticism for his actions from the Republicans and also from the labor organizations in America despite the fact that he had succeeded in strengthening the Sherman Act.
In summary President Wilsons primary focus was on improving the state of the American Economy during the first days of his tenure in office by liberating the average American citizen from financial monopolists and business owners. The New Freedom plan was meant to free the average Americans from the economic struggles they had been facing (Foner 107).
While President Wilson focused on economic freedom in America during his tenure, President Franklin Roosevelt focused on freedom for the American people after World War II. His re-election in 1940 saw him propagating the cause of Britain and its allies in World War II by giving a speech before the US Congress in 1941 that dealt on the four freedoms that human beings are entitled to which are the freedom to speak, to want, fear and worship.
The Four Freedoms speech made by President Roosevelt was viewed to be a reflection of the social and political goals the President wanted to achieve to improve the lives of Americans after the war (Foner 207).
The freedom of speech and expression was not only to be applied in the American context but also in the world wide setting. This also applied to the freedom to worship God in whatever way one deemed best.
The freedom to want was translated to mean economic understanding that would secure every country in the world peace for its citizens while the freedom from fear was translated to mean the world wide reduction of armaments or weaponry to a point where a country would not be able to commit any forms of aggression anywhere in the world.
The last two freedoms which were freedom to want and fear were viewed to go beyond the values set out in the US Constitutions First Amendment that endorsed the right to economic and human security (Foner 208).
The concept of the Four Freedoms became an inspiration to the First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt in developing the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that stated Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy speech, belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed the highest aspiration of the common people&.. (Howard and Pederson 175).
However the Four Freedoms speech was met with criticisms from a section of Americans who argued that the president was abandoning American citizens who were still recovering from the depression and the war. They also argued that he was more focused on expanding the war in Europe which would threaten the average Americans inalienable rights.
While the freedom of speech was guaranteed by the US Constitution, President Roosevelt saw the censorship placed on the war and the sense of misguided patriotism in the country would lead to grave infringements on the First Amendment of the Constitution. There were also fears that racism directed towards the African American and Hispanic communities in the country would limit the American freedom to worship (Howard and Pederson 169).
President Roosevelts reference to freedom from want was directed to the social, economic and cultural deprivation that was facing the country during the period of depression and World War II. Freedom from fear was viewed to be the presidents pledge to keep America and its citizens free from the rampant warfare that was taking place in Europe.
President Roosevelt viewed the Four freedoms to be important even as the world was facing the threat of World War II. He recognized that there was a need to allocate responsibility to an authority that would protect the Four Freedoms. The challenge was that he could not do it himself because of the publics opinion of him during that time and also because of his own personal limitations because of World War II that would not allow him to accept that responsibility (Howard and Pederson 170).
He later on found a solution to this dilemma by creating a wartime agency that would be designed to deal with the social, cultural and economic security of America. The agency referred to as the Civilian War Services Division (CWS) reduced the conflict that was being experienced by President Roosevelt in constituency matters and world politics.
The CWS was tasked with the job of maintaining the Four Freedoms in America by coordinating the federal, state and local civilian defense relationships, formulation and implementation of programs designed to protect the lives of American citizens and their property in the event of a violent aggression directed towards the country and the promotion of activities that would see American citizens involved in defense programs (Howard and Pederson 171).
Another voice of freedom explored by Foner (130) is that of Randolph Bourne who was a social critic and essayist for the generation of young intellectuals who came of age in the 1910s. Bourne viewed the emergency conditions in World War I as serving undemocratic purposes.
In his work Trans-national America which was written during the First World War, he noted that the most important civic role American citizens could play during the war was to maintain a critical stance that would challenge the governments complacency to the war (Columbia University par. 1).
According to Bourne, American citizens during the war had tried to incorporate the cultures of non US citizens into their own instead of providing the melting pot where immigrants and other foreigners were supposed to take up the American culture as their own. While doing this they overlooked the fact not everyone wanted to assimilate the American culture.
Bourne also calls for a redefinition of Americanization by providing an argument that the term no longer means that America is a melting pot of different immigrants. He noted that Americans needed to respect the wishes of the foreigners who came into the country not to be a part of the Native American culture but to search for freedom (Bourne par.2). He also talks about the disenfranchisement that occurs between the old and new immigrants.
Bourne stated that the old immigrants who had become accustomed to the American culture needed to stop Americanizing the new immigrants as they were once immigrants who gained credit from establishing some form of freedom and now they were forcing the new immigrants to become more American thereby forgetting their culture.
To further explain this statement, he compared the old immigrants to people who gave their money to philanthropy but they could not see from the point of view of those they gave their money to (Foner 132).
In summary the three biographies in their own different contexts and settings called for a sense of freedom in America. President Wilson advocated for the economic freedom and security of the American people from manipulation by the businesses and corporations that had monopolized the American economy for a long time.
President Roosevelt in his Four Freedoms speech called for the freedom of human beings when it came to speech, worship, fear and want. Bourne advocated for the freedom of new foreigners or immigrants to practice their own forms of culture and not have the American style of living imposed on them.
All these individuals advocated for a sense of change as well as a reassertion of the cries for freedom and democracy in America. Their speeches and texts were seen to be timely messages for the modern world that was engulfed in racial tensions, violent aggressions and economic exploitation of the average, poor citizens in the world. Their focus on freedom was a means to create a better world for both the present and future citizens of the world.
The history of a country or state serves as an important component to progress and development. History teaches about the past of a particular people, community, society, and so forth. Freedom is a state of one being in a position to express his own ideas, establish them and being treated in accordance to his wishes.
On the other hand, progress is an act of a country improving from one level to another in various aspects, be it economical, political, social or even moral aspects. In order for a community to calculate its progress and recent achievements, it is always in order to consider where they have come from, learn from past success and failures, embrace what would be helpful from the past, and amend the failures to avoid a repeat of the mistakes, giving room for modernization, industrialization, and advancements.
On learning about history, many ideologists emerge with distinct visions that are sometimes interrelated, though others are contrasting concerning what freedom civilization and progress aspects are. Thus, this paper will aim at investigating the history of America.
Additionally, it will seek to find out the visions that have been put forward concerning freedom and the American progress from the perspective of American Indians. More over, it will seek to establish the comparison and contrast of the visions about freedom and progress of America, as well as the idea of civilization that has occurred in the distinct ethic communities[1].
The history of the United States and its characteristics
The United States, being one of the most famous and prominent countries in the world, has a kind of memorable history. It is characterized by various events that have helped to shape its future. In addition, it was among the first states to gain full independence during the early 19th century, and at the same time, witnessing tremendous events whose end marked the beginning of progress. First, the country faced the challenge of colonization by British and other forces who caused the country freedom to be deprived.
It was also marked by the presence of different ethnic communities who had conflicting ideas about progress, civilization, as well as freedom. Moreover, there was rampant slavery, which had emanated from colonization, depriving people of their rights and freedoms and causing many to rise up in questing for freedom. Furthermore, the economic, political and social status was poorly developed, thus it needed some critical attention.
More important, the United States was not an exception when it came to the world wars touching almost all European states; this is evidenced by participation in the World War I and World War II, as well as the Cold Wars, events that awakened them to stand strategically in the recent years[2]. Recently, other historical events like terrorism have also been experienced, giving way for the different ideologies that have been put across.
The vision of American progress and freedom from the perspective of American Indians
From the recorded reports in the history of America and the Dee Browns literature, it is evident that America had been occupied by a number of numerous ethnic groups for a long time. Thus, from the perspective of American Indians, many ideas developed concerning the progress of America and the idea of freedom.
First, the Americans believed that it could not matter the number of ethnic groups that occupied the state, however, they would expand towards the four corners to become a large territory in the world.
They thought of the expansion not only as a wise idea, but also as an opening to economic, political, and social opportunities for every citizen living in the country. Additionally, owing to the occurrence of the consequent world wars, they believed in a destiny that is manifest where democracy and freedom were key achievements in all areas of governance.
Secondly, the idea of a destiny that was manifest was interpreted differently by different groups, thus the development of a variety of ideas concerning what freedom is, including Dee Browns views[3]. The vision to expand was accompanied by idea to become the most industrialized state in the world, ending every kind of a bondage and expansion of trade. Furthermore, the Americans anticipated working to their best in ceasing slavery, promoting development, and fostering progress in a nation that is democratic and free.
Furthermore, from the perspective of American Indians, the Americans always have a vision to promote the unity of different races that are in existence in the country. United State harbors every kind of a race that exists in the earth, thus creating many problems. However, a lot of racism has thrived, sometimes acting as a hindrance to the achievement of positive visions.
Therefore, there has always been hope that the problem of racism will one day end, while at the same time, other ideologists believe that the existence of such races is adequate. More important, most Americans have long anticipated for a politically free state, where the constitution in the country gives room for every citizen to exercise their ideas and rights in all ways since freedom paves a way for a peaceful nation[4].
Similarities in the competing visions about freedom and progress
The competing visions concerning progress and freedom put forward by the United States have had some distinct similarities. One, most of them has focused on the liberty of the people regardless of the race, thus the reason for most ideologists trying to define freedom as a way of fighting for it. The vision for all citizens has as well focused on the idea of civilization, without leaving behind any of the races in order to create a modern country.
At the same time, the ides of economic, political, and social development is well embraced in the country by all ethnic races, despite the racial differences that may occur between them. Overall, they all concur that a Free State, freedom, and democracy is the key to every success[5]. More over, all are keen about their history since it will definitely provide some direction for the success of the future plans.
Contrast in the competing visions about freedom and progress
In the recorded history of America, contrasting visions concerning freedom and the countrys progress have been put in place. The main reason as to why there have to be competing visions about something is simply that of people being created differently and uniquely in their way of viewing things. All along, people have provided distinct ideas of what they view as freedom.
For instance, Dee brown records that some ideologies have been passed to portray freedom as the aspect of not being in slavery. On the other hand, others view freedom to emanate from security in the economy of America. Moreover, some people consider that, when a country becomes politically independent, there is a room for freedom to find its way easily in such a state.
Most people have considered freedom to take pre-eminence in a state where the constitution gives full rights to a citizen to exercise their freedom for a long time. This is the most common ideology since almost all states in the world have documented freedom in their constitutions.
Nevertheless, if we revisit the history, the term freedom ought to have a deeper and a concise meaning, since, though records declare one free according to a constitution, other factors may declare one definitely bound. For instance, from people, a history of the United States, the Americans vision was that of self-freedom from a state of colonialism, at a time when colonialism had overtaken them.
Thus, they were working towards eliminating the colonialists from their land in this perspective. Therefore, freedom would be possibly defined appropriately in accordance to the prevailing conditions at the time of its requirement to avoid dwelling on a diversity of contrasting visions[6].
Furthermore, different people have also rated the challenges that the country faces currently to the high rate of industrialization and modernization. They have viewed much industrialization as a key to sources of conflicts and terror attacks and they suggest that minimal developments are healthy.
Others view freedom to be problematic since it is a source of rampant crimes in the state, thus decide that much freedom should not be granted. However, as people still anticipate that racism would come to an end, other people do embrace the same finding it as a solution to the many problems since two are always considered better than one on terms of development and progress[7].
Conclusion
The American history is marked by a number of events and ideologies about freedom and progress. It is true that freedom and progress are directly interrelated, since freedom paves way for developmental ideas. In addition, there have been many ideas, some similar and other contrasting ideas about freedom and progress over the years.
Nevertheless, the objective of the paper has been achieved in discussing about the history, as well as comparing and contrasting different visions that have been put forward concerning freedom and progress. Thus, more research should be conducted to come up with an appropriate definition of freedom and its relationship with progress as well as other economic, social, and political factors.
Bibliography
Abbott, Jacob. American History. NY: Sheldon & co. publishers, 1860.
Bancroft, George. History of the United States. Boston: The University of Michigan publishers, 2005.
Brown, Dee and Sides, Hampton. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. NY: Sterling Publishing Company, Inc, 2009.
Footnotes
Abbott, Jacob. American History. American history Volume 1, (NY: Sheldon & co. publishers, 1860), p, 136.
Brown, Dee and Sides, Hampton. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West, (NY: Sterling Publishing Company, Inc, 2009), p.41.
Brown, Dee and Sides, Hampton. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West, (NY: Sterling Publishing Company, Inc, 2009), p.13.
Brown, Dee and Sides, Hampton. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West, (NY: Sterling Publishing Company, Inc, 2009), p. viii.
Bancroft, George. History of the United States. (Boston, The University of Michigan publishers, 2005), p. 176.
Bancroft, George. History of the United States. (Boston, The University of Michigan publishers, 2005), p. 1.
Bancroft, George. History of the United States. (Boston, The University of Michigan publishers, 2005), p. 81 & 82.
Freedom forms the solitary foundation for the existence of the American society as it is known today. With no freedom, perhaps the great nation of America could not be present. In the 1850s, the word freedom was increasingly gaining new meaning to different people as the American society felt the need to avoid oppressing some of its members.
During the period, more factories were being established in the Northern part of the United States. Consequently, in order to provide cheap labor, most of the workers in the factories were enslaved. Therefore, for a once enslaved Northern worker, he or she would take the word freedom to mean the ability to have all the comforts and necessities of life without constraint from anyone.
A freed worker had the ability to enjoy the benefits of freedom because he or she was no longer oppressed neither by care nor by hard labor, as the despotism of his or her master was no longer significant. Once being free, a Northern worker was able to balance his or her time so that he or she could have adequate time for repose.
On the other hand, for industrialists (factory owners), the word freedom would connote a different meaning. As their workers became free from forced labor, they were obliged to improve the working conditions of their workers, or to allow the ones who no longer wanted to work to go and search for other means of earning income.
Consequently, the freedom of their slaves could make them to want to die of ennui. Freedom to the industrialists would mean that they would avoid their oppressive practices. However, they would aspire for freedom that could still give them the ability to control the Negroes. Therefore, they could not come to an agreement about the meaning of the word freedom with their workers since it meant different things for the two groups.
During the 1850s, life as a slave was taxing as one was forced to endure hard labor and other forms of harsh treatments. Therefore, it was a great jubilation when one walked to freedom. A slave could have the freedom to be exempted from displeasing or onerous tasks. As a result, the slave could be able to exercise freely his or her will without outside interference.
As much as the slaves considered themselves free, they still aspired another form of freedom in which they could not to be perceived to be inferior to the white race. The slaves wanted to be recognized like any other normal human being with full capabilities of taking part in the affairs of the nation.
For a slaveholder, freedom had a different meaning. The slaveholder no longer had the freedom to manipulate his or her slave the way he or she wanted without the slaves consent. Therefore, for slave-owners, freedom meant that they were to free their slaves from the yolk of servitude that they had been subjected to.
However, the slaveholders aspired for a form of freedom in which they still had the control of the actions of their slaves. In this regard, the slaves and the slaveholders could not come to a common agreement on the meaning of freedom as both of them held different positions on its rightful meaning. Nonetheless, the meaning of the word freedom was more significant to the slaves than to any other person.