Is freedom worth it?

[leibowde84]

I considered that, but if absolute freedom doesn't exist (which it does, say, for a single person or family stranded/liberated on an island), then how can a part of something that doesn't exist......exist.



How am I strange or incorrect?

"determinism:

a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

b : a belief in predestination"

Here's another (the second sentence is my fav):

"The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some (liberal) philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

Bingo! The underlined is the liberal academic "philosophy" that rationalizes the idea that there is no will, much less free will, and thus we're innately not responsible for our actions--except for libertarians and conservatives who are the Devil's spawn, even though they're not responsible for themselves either.....somehow.

Either we have free will and are morally responsible for ourselves, or we don't and aren't

And, in regards to absolute freedom, I would say that it cannot exist, or is a logical fallacy. The physical world has limitations by definition. Freedom is defined as "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Now, one can speak to the removal of governmental or human made restraints that might be removed, but the restraints of the laws of nature, for example, cannot. Thus, I am not free to fly, breathe under water, etc. But, maybe that is taking this issue a bit too far.

 

[LuisDantas]

Something I thought I'd never hear are those who are questioning the value of freedom. Mostly I think it's because they don't know what freedom is and what happens when it's gone. So please consider the following definition:

I consider morality to be honoring the rights of others, which consist only of the right to life, liberty, property and self-defense--nothing more. Freedom as I've often said is the right to be a dumb as you want, on your own dime; meaning that you don't allow your stupidity/ignorance to violate any of those rights of others. Is there anyone who believes our rights are more or less than these, if so what? In any case, doesn't having our rights protected, whatever they may be, ultimately the meaning of freedom? I'd expect only the anarchist and the despot to argue against these rights and the freedom they provide.

By that definition, freedom is not a right that anyone who has had offspring or who lives in a community of some sort has, nor should have.

 

[Deidre]

I think that the idea of freedom, is just that...an idea. It is intangible. Like the idea of a god. Or how to explain consciousness. It falls into those categories, because freedom is different for many. The truth is, nothing and no one can strip you of all of your freedoms. Incarcerated people are still the masters of their thoughts, even though they lack other freedoms that someone who isn't incarcerated would enjoy.

Freedom is an idea. Which is why it is hard to be definitive about, and hard to control. Hitler tried to control and limit certain groups' freedoms, but it didn't work for long.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think, considering that the passage says that only "some (liberal) philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions," that it can be assumed that determinism, in general, does not adhere to this belief. Thus, I think that it is a misleading characterization of what it means to be a determinist, imho.

I agree that "some philosophers" is a subset of the whole determinist group who all believe we have no will, as both definitions state. Only some take it further by saying that makes we determinist creatures not morally responsible. And under determinism, they would have a point. We're gonna do what our strings make us do. I do think (cynically) that most believe this for self-serving purposes, so they can violate the rights of others guilt free, in their own minds anyway. Others probably do it sub-consciously for the same reason.

Determinism, moral relativism and the all knowledge is subjective perspective, are parts of the unholy trinity of the philosophy that starts with a desired goal, says "that's my convenient truth", and that's it. They don't claim anything natural, supernatural or willful, just build a brick wall.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree that "some philosophers" is a subset of the whole determinist group who all believe we have no will, as both definitions state. Only some take it further by saying that makes we determinist creatures not morally responsible. And under determinism, they would have a point. We're gonna do what our strings make us do. I do think (cynically) that most believe this for self-serving purposes, so they can violate the rights of others guilt free, in their own minds anyway. Others probably do it sub-consciously for the same reason.

Determinism, moral relativism and the all knowledge is subjective perspective, are parts of the unholy trinity of the philosophy that starts with a desired goal, says "that's my convenient truth", and that's it. They don't claim anything natural, supernatural or willful, just build a brick wall.

The first definition does not necessarily say that we have no "will" though. It merely says that our "will" is also determined by natural factors. Of course, we might feel like we have control of our own thoughts, but determinists would merey say that we don't realize all of the natural/societal factors which have led us to think in a certain way.

I just don't think it is appropriate to say that they "have no will," because that could lead some to the incorrect assumption that there is no morality or responsibility, when, of course, there is.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

By that definition, freedom is not a right that anyone who has had offspring or who lives in a community of some sort has, nor should have.

I don't understand.

I think that the idea of freedom, is just that...an idea. It is intangible. Like the idea of a god. Or how to explain consciousness. It falls into those categories, because freedom is different for many. The truth is, nothing and no one can strip you of all of your freedoms. Incarcerated people are still the masters of their thoughts, even though they lack other freedoms that someone who isn't incarcerated would enjoy.

Well first off, you can take away a man's freedom by killing him which terminates his thoughts. As Clint Eastwood's character famously said in Unforgiven, "It's a terrible thing killing a man. You take away everything he's got and everything he's ever gonna have." When you enslave a man, his life is not his own. When you steal from him, you take away that part of his life he spent earning it. And when you prevent him from defending himself, you make him vulnerable to being killed. Freedom is nothing more than government imposed good order--which all but anarchists and despots want. And you can only define that freedom with the rights we can reasonably expect government to protect.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't understand.



Well first off, you can take away a man's freedom by killing him which terminates his thoughts. As Clint Eastwood's character famously said in Unforgiven, "It's a terrible thing killing a man. You take away everything he's got and everything he's ever gonna have." When you enslave a man, his life is not his own. When you steal from him, you take away that part of his life he spent earning it. And when you prevent him from defending himself, you make him vulnerable to being killed. Freedom is nothing more than government imposed good order--which all but anarchists and despots want. And you can only define that freedom with the rights we can reasonably expect government to protect.

But none of that points to any real absolute or ultimate freedom existing. Just the possibility of governments granting freedoms via constitutional protections.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The first definition does not necessarily say that we have no "will" though. It merely says that our "will" is also determined by natural factors. Of course, we might feel like we have control of our own thoughts, but determinists would merey say that we don't realize all of the natural/societal factors which have led us to think in a certain way.

You're right. It think they're trying to be too smart by half. "Will" is determined, that is, predetermined, but then how can it be will? I suppose it could be the will of a Creator if there is one, but then what's the point? All of creation doing what God knew it would do in the first place. What is will after all but the ability to choose? If our decisions were made at the Big Bang, our choices were already made for us. Of course when we talk about free will, the implication is moral free will. We don't have the ability to override natural law with will, no matter how many religions claim otherwise.

I just don't think it is appropriate to say that they "have no will," because that could lead some to the incorrect assumption that there is no morality or responsibility, when, of course, there is.

Precisely. Yet we hear people professing it, even from the podiums and publications of many liberal arts colleges. And where did it come from originally? Religion, where people said God is omnipotent and knows everything, so He must know what we will do. Never mind that an omnipotent God would have the power share some of that omnipotence so that He (It) wouldn't know our choices, and could be surprised, or delighted or disappointed; or that there's no God at all.

 

[leibowde84]

You're right. It think they're trying to be too smart by half. "Will" is determined, that is, predetermined, but then how can it be will? I suppose it could be the will of a Creator if there is one, but then what's the point? All of creation doing what God knew it would do in the first place. What is will after all but the ability to choose? If our decisions were made at the Big Bang, our choices were already made for us. Of course when we talk about free will, the implication is moral free will. We don't have the ability to override natural law with will, no matter how many religions claim otherwise.



Precisely. Yet we hear people professing it, even from the podiums and publications of many liberal arts colleges. And where did it come from originally? Religion, where people said God is omnipotent and knows everything, so He must know what we will do. Never mind that an omnipotent God would have the power share some of that omnipotence so that He (It) wouldn't know our choices, and could be surprised, or delighted or disappointed; or that there's no God at all.

I don't think God is necessary at all in this specific circumstance. There is no necessity for any being to know anything about the future for the experience of an individual to be predetermined by outside forces. It merely means that our actions are guided by the world around us in ways that are impossible to be aware of. In a sense it is merely saying that there is no objectivity, as our past experiences impact every aspect of our current experience so drastically. And, those experiences are a product of our natural environment. I do not see anything else inherent in the first definition.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But none of that points to any real absolute or ultimate freedom existing. Just the possibility of governments granting freedoms via constitutional protections.

True, except is isn't, or shouldn't, be governments granting freedoms; it's the people establishing government to enforce their freedoms. Our freedoms, based on our rights, are reasonably deduced from one assumption, one mandate, the maintenance of good order. Those rights, that good order, also establishes the hard limits to the powers of governments.

 

[leibowde84]

True, except is isn't, or shouldn't, be governments granting freedoms; it's the people establishing government to enforce their freedoms. Our freedoms, based on our rights, are reasonably deduced from one assumption, one mandate, the maintenance of good order. Those rights, that good order, also establishes the hard limits to the powers of governments.

But, there is not one person in the world that has absolute freedom.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Freedom I prefer.

real freedom dont exist , but there is people has more of it than others .

That said, a good point can be made in face of how Native Americans view the ideals of freedom and black folk prior and into the 40's and 50's. Freedom for what's achieved isn't easy nor necessarily security but it's certainly worth the efforts to push back the wrongs that inhibit freedom.

Freedom is worth fighting for. Fight those that fight freedom.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't think God is necessary at all in this specific circumstance. There is no necessity for any being to know anything about the future for the experience of an individual to be predetermined by outside forces.[/quote}

Yes, because God's existence, if It exists, is purposefully kept secret for the precise reason of maintaining our free will. The absence of any evidence for or against God is almost evidence for It, almost. In fact, if the universe was created, it would have to be for the sole purpose of spawning creatures in a natural, rational environment with free will. Anything else, an omnipotent God could do instantly.

It merely means that our actions are guided by the world around us in ways that are impossible to be aware of. In a sense it is merely saying that there is no objectivity, as our past experiences impact every aspect of our current experience so drastically. And, those experiences are a product of our natural environment. I do not see anything else inherent in the first definition.

Actions, that is choices, guided by our environment and genes, yes, but not predetermined by them. And I assume you mean the determinism means there is no objectivity, with which I would also agree. Determinism is the ultimate butterfly effect. But butterflies et al are just links in the deterministic chain. Even butterflies have will, to go to this flower or that, just not moral free will.

 

[leibowde84]

Freedom I prefer.




That said, a good point can be made in face of how Native Americans view the ideals of freedom and black folk prior and into the 40's and 50's. Freedom for what's achieved isn't easy nor necessarily security but it's certainly worth the efforts to push back the wrongs that inhibit freedom.

Freedom is worth fighting for. Fight those that fight freedom.

Agreed. But, again, this does not say anything about the topic at hand ... whether absolute freedom of action exists in the world. We are all bound by the physical limitations of our present condition.