Arts & Humanities >
Philosophical Concepts
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs the concept of freedom overrated?
Results so far:
| Yes | 29% | 290 votes | Total: 993 votes | |
| No | 71% | 703 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe concept of freedom can only properly be understood within the overall framework of rights and duties, especially natural rights, such as life, liberty ("freedom"), and access to the means of acquiring and possessing property. Without this essential understanding, the exercise of any right - especially liberty - can and will be exaggerated to the point that its exercise on the part of the most powerful becomes absolute, while those who lack power cannot exercise their rights at all.
First, we need to understand what a "right" is. A right is the power to do or not do something in relation to another or others. "Duty" is the correlative of right, duty being the obligation to do or not do something in relation to another or others. Thus, if I have a right, you have the duty to allow me to exercise that right.
There are two "parts" to a right. They are 1) having a right, and 2) exercising a right. Obviously, having a right is not exactly the same as how you exercise that right. They are related, however, in that if you have a right, the State, custom, or tradition may not define the exercise of the right in any way that effectively negates the fact that you have the right.
For example, assume you have the right to own private property. The right to own is, by the way, a natural right, and one without which you are not considered a "human person," - "person" signifying "that which has rights." That is all very well, but if you do not also have the right of access to an effective means of becoming an owner (savings, credit, inheritance, etc.), then your right to own is effectively negated, that is, it is only nominal and doesn't really mean anything.
There are two kinds of rights. There are "natural rights," that is, rights that belong to each and every human being by nature and automatically make each human being a human person. Denying any of the natural rights, such as life, liberty, or property, means that you are denying the essential (natural) humanity of the individual or group of which you are denying the right or rights. "Human being" is an individual concept, while "human person" is a social concept. We are both beings and persons, and we must balance the demands of both within the social order.
The second kind of right is (as we might expect) the "secondary" or "derived" right. These are rights that, while they might not be considered natural rights, make the natural rights effective. For example, the primary or natural right to life means that you have the secondary or derived right to be born, to work that you might earn an income on which to live, to be paid justly for that work, and to be secure in your life and property.
Now - HOW the exercise of a right is defined is critical. Just because you have a right to own, doesn't mean that you have the right to own everything, nor does it mean that you may use what you own to harm yourself, other individuals or groups, or the common good. Possession of a right is absolute, but the exercise of any right, by its nature as a social thing (a right, by definition, is exercised against others - "society"), must take into consideration not only the wants and needs of the right holder, but also the wants and needs of other individuals and groups, as well as the whole of the common good.
"Common good" in this context is the network of rights - "institutions" - within which human persons exist as social beings as well as individuals. Because human persons are social at the same time human beings are individual, the exercise of any right must be strictly defined and limited at the same time that possession of the right is absolute, absent just cause for its removal by duly constituted authority for the good of the social order.
Thus, every human being has by nature an absolute right to be free, and thus is automatically a human person. Possession of this right - usually called "liberty" - cannot be exaggerated or overrated. HOW that freedom is exercised, however, can certainly be misunderstood and, being misunderstood, misused, exaggerated, and exercised to the detriment of the free individual, other individuals and groups, and society as a whole.
The exercise of freedom is, in fact, one of the most misunderstood and overrated bundle of rights in the world today. Because I have the right to exercise my liberty, be it freedom of speech, of action, or of belief, does not mean that I can say anything I like and force you to listen. Nor does it mean that I can begin kicking you simply because I feel like it and you must take it because you would otherwise be limiting my freedom. Most especially it does not mean that I can force my religious beliefs on you or kill you because you do not share them.
Freedom does mean that I can say, do, or believe anything I like as long as I do not harm myself, other individuals or groups, or the social order. The problem is convincing people that their freedom may be absolute in its possession, but limited in its exercise - a rather difficult task when the most popular word in the world is "me."
Learn more about this author, Michael Greaney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Before stating that the concept of freedom is overrated, one must first establish a clear understanding of what is meant by 'freedom.' Freedom, over the centuries, has had different meanings, and how it is viewed varies from culture to culture and is dependent upon the circumstances that exist.
Francois Guizot, in his treatise on European civilization, described four states of society. In one, the citizens have easy lives with a material existence that is happy and well regulated, but intellectual and moral existence is kept in a state of torpor and inactivity. In a second, life is less comfortable materially, but the moral and intellectual wants are not neglected. In a third, there is great individual liberty, but there is much disorder and inequality; it is an empire of force and chance. In the fourth state of society there is great individual liberty and no inequality, but no individual has a sense of public responsibility. In which of these states of society would we say there exists freedom, or would we have to admit that there are different kinds and degrees of freedom?
Ask a slave if there could be such a thing as too much freedom. Now, ask that slave's master the same question. The thought that the concept of freedom is overrated will depend upon the status of the person doing the thinking.
People who hold the view that freedom is a concept that is made too much of, are in actuality not thinking about freedom as it has been envisioned by philosophers and thinkers down through the ages; they think instead of 'license.' Something akin to Guizot's fourth state of society; a kind of 'dog eat dog' kind of liberty where it is everyone for him or herself without regard to others. This is not really freedom, it is anarchy.
The freedom that Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers envisioned when they wrote of the 'inalienable' rights of man, is a concept that is not overrated, it is under appreciated. It is, in fact, not 'inalienable,' for a despotic government or individual complacency can cause it to be taken away. It is, however, a right that should not be taken away. It is the freedom that was aspired to in the English Bill of Rights of 1689; the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789, and in the Virginia Declaration of rights in 1776, authored by George Mason, and paraphrased in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. It is both freedom from and freedom to. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; freedom of religion, speech and assembly. If one reads these documents, it is amazing how across decades and cultures, and despite the very different conditions under which they were written, there is a certain universality to them.
When the United Nations Charter was written in 1945, followed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, we find similar sentiments agreed to by the founding states of the United Nations; states with widely different political systems and cultures. Even in nations today that violate these very freedoms, there is at least tacit acceptance that individuals are entitled to them.
Perhaps the best answer to the charge that freedom is an overrated concept is found in the words of Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address:
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle. That though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable. That the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."
Learn more about this author, Charles Ray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
