Is freedom worth it?

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

A agree, those things are at least the basis of all rights. The only protection they provide, though, is from physical harm or theft of property. There certainly is no protection from offense.

 

[Valjean]

Couldn't one enjoy an easier, safer, more prosperous life if he subordinated some of his self-interest to the welfare of a co-operating group?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Couldn't one enjoy an easier, safer, more prosperous life if he subordinated some of his self-interest to the welfare of a co-operating group?

I thought we already did that by paying taxes.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

I think that it would be much more courteous to actually ask the people with these perspectives why they say this instead of condemning them as ignorant. You might learn something about other people and cultures, as well as their differing value systems.

Is there anyone who believes our rights are more or less than these, if so what?

Yes. Right = ability. All agents have the "right" to do anything and everything that is within their power or nature to do; nothing more and nothing less. Given different agents have different natures and powers, that is going to vary from agent to agent.

I get that what we call "rights" in my culture are, in reality, social contracts or social norms. I prefer to call them that instead of using the word "right," which has this absurd implication of guarantee or entitlement. There is no "right" to life! Biological organisms can die at any time! This one very much dislikes "rights" language.

In any case, doesn't having our rights protected, whatever they may be, ultimately the meaning of freedom?

To some. However, it ought to be recognized that any enforcement of social norms or contracts - and "rights" are very much social norms or contracts - necessarily involve restraints on "freedom." Perhaps this is the closest any human society can come to freedom, but it is not what I would consider the ultimate meaning of freedom. Ultimate freedom entirely lacks limitations, and is an abstract principle more than something achievable in this-worldly reality.

I'd expect only the anarchist and the despot to argue against these rights and the freedom they provide.

Consider your expectations to be falsified, then. That I dislike rights language and am a determinist who thinks freedom is ultimately an illusion doesn't mean I'm an anarchist or a despot. It means I dislike rights language and am a determinist. Oh noes.

As an aside... why is this in religious debates?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Couldn't one enjoy an easier, safer, more prosperous life if he subordinated some of his self-interest to the welfare of a co-operating group?

As was already mentioned, there's already plenty of taxes, and I'd certainly add that there's lots of controls and regulations and laws. And as Ben Franklin said (paraphrased), those who trade freedom for security with end up with neither. Of course any government that's the slightest bit beneficent would qualify, the question is where's the line? I think we've passed well beyond it since government can't (or won't) stop growing itself.

I think that it would be much more courteous to actually ask the people with these perspectives why they say this instead of condemning them as ignorant. You might learn something about other people and cultures, as well as their differing value systems.

I always do when someone brings it up, and I've never gotten a decent response. I get the impression that they're just repeating what they've been told. In any case, I gather you're at the other end of the spectrum, and a defender of absolute freedom?

Yes. Right = ability. All agents have the "right" to do anything and everything that is within their power or nature to do; nothing more and nothing less. Given different agents have different natures and powers, that is going to vary from agent to agent.

Well, we don't need government then? What's an agent? Do we (they?) have the right to murder, enslave, steal etc?

I get that what we call "rights" in my culture are, in reality, social contracts or social norms. I prefer to call them that instead of using the word "right," which has this absurd implication of guarantee or entitlement. There is no "right" to life! Biological organisms can die at any time! This one very much dislikes "rights" language.

To some. However, it ought to be recognized that any enforcement of social norms or contracts - and "rights" are very much social norms or contracts - necessarily involve restraints on "freedom." Perhaps this is the closest any human society can come to freedom, but it is not what I would consider the ultimate meaning of freedom. Ultimate freedom entirely lacks limitations, and is an abstract principle more than something achievable in this-worldly reality.

If you're an anarchist, why don't you just come right out and say it? It'd save a lot of knuckle-grease on our keyboards.

Consider your expectations to be falsified, then. That I dislike rights language and am a determinist who thinks freedom is ultimately an illusion doesn't mean I'm an anarchist or a despot. It means I dislike rights language and am a determinist. Oh noes.

If everything is predetermined, then why not just off yourself? What's the point either way? I do see your advantage though, I wouldn't kill you because of my moral ethics honoring your rights, but you can rationalize killing me or doing anything to anyone because you'd just say it was predetermined and there was nothing they could do about it, and I didn't have my right to my life anyway. And it does mean you're an anarchist. But as I've been saying for years, the first target of the anarchist, and his cousin the socialist, is the lexicon.

As an aside... why is this in religious debates?

Rights are the legal translation of morals, something I'm sure you'd agree falls under religion/philosophy. And religions have been throwing morals onto holy piles for 10,000 years. I thought I'd pare it back down a bit....to the only 4 I could justify. Yes, I know the next question, but I'll offer you the courtesy of asking it.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

A agree, those things are at least the basis of all rights. The only protection they provide, though, is from physical harm or theft of property. There certainly is no protection from offense.

Yes, but how can someone offend you unless you allow them to in the first place. Sticks and stones, what?

 

[serp777]

I think a fair amount of freedom is good. maximum freedom is obviously a bad thing--we need laws restricting the freedom of people who would harm society.

Its about finding a middle ground between a functional society and having as much freedom as possible. Its certainly tough to make judgments, like in the case of the freedom vs safety argument, but ultimately, in my opinion, 75-25 ratio of freedom to control is about right.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think a fair amount of freedom is good. maximum freedom is obviously a bad thing--we need laws restricting the freedom of people who would harm society.

Its about finding a middle ground between a functional society and having as much freedom as possible. Its certainly tough to make judgments, like in the case of the freedom vs safety argument, but ultimately, in my opinion, 75-25 ratio of freedom to control is about right.

But what's the basis for that number, how do we decide what is basically a random ratio? Wouldn't using specific reasoned rights designed to promote good order be a better definition of the freedom we're trying to establish? And the real beauty of it, besides it's limited simplicity, is that good order works simultaneously for the benefit of individuals as well as for society as a whole.

 

[Quintessence]

In any case, I gather you're at the other end of the spectrum, and a defender of absolute freedom?

I can defend or argue for just about anything, but if you mean to ask if this is what I personally support, the answer is no, not really. I'm quite content with the status quo.

Well, we don't need government then? What's an agent? Do we (they?) have the right to murder, enslave, steal etc?

Strictly speaking, humanity does not "need" anything. However, humans being social animals, they are inevitably going to form social norms or customs that operate to govern and regulate group behavior, such as governments. Whether or not we "need" a government is sort of besides the point - we will always have group regulating structures by virtue of our nature as a species.

An agent is an individual. That could be a human, a squirrel, a tree, or a rock. And all agents have the "right" to do that which they are able to do. Again, as I said, I don't like "rights" language. It's better to call social norms and contracts what they are, I think.

If you're an anarchist, why don't you just come right out and say it?

Because.... er... I'm not?

If everything is predetermined, then why not just off yourself?

What's the point either way?

I'm sorry that you would be unable to find meaningfulness in existence if all is determined. I do not have that problem.

I do see your advantage though, I wouldn't kill you because of my moral ethics honoring your rights, but you can rationalize killing me or doing anything to anyone because you'd just say it was predetermined and there was nothing they could do about it, and I didn't have my right to my life anyway.

Er... okay? You have a... interesting way of interpreting these things. Please understand that this is not at all how I interpret these things and I do not have this "advantage" you seem to think that I have.

And it does mean you're an anarchist. But as I've been saying for years, the first target of the anarchist, and his cousin the socialist, is the lexicon.

Er... okay? See things as you will, I guess; doesn't make it correct. Given the rudeness demonstrated here and the lack of active listening, you'll have to forgive me if I feel disinclined to continue this conversation.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, but how can someone offend you unless you allow them to in the first place. Sticks and stones, what?

Exactly. There is always the option to ignore. And, it really shouldn't be that difficult. I think I ignore 99.9999999% of what happens around me every day. But, I guess I'm pretty busy.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I can defend or argue for just about anything, but if you mean to ask if this is what I personally support, the answer is no, not really. I'm quite content with the status quo.

Status quo....IOW freedom squelching, elite double-standard promoting, government overarching control, socialism?

Strictly speaking, humanity does not "need" anything. However, humans being social animals, they are inevitably going to form social norms or customs that operate to govern and regulate group behavior, such as governments. Whether or not we "need" a government is sort of besides the point - we will always have group regulating structures by virtue of our nature as a species.

You're quibbling about whether government is necessary? What does that have to do with what our rights should be, if as you assert that government will be no matter what?

An agent is an individual. That could be a human, a squirrel, a tree, or a rock. And all agents have the "right" to do that which they are able to do. Again, as I said, I don't like "rights" language. It's better to call social norms and contracts what they are, I think.

What they are is rights. What you said yourself is that "all things have the right to do what they are able to do", which implies no restrictions. But, btw, a rock and a tree don't have will, and without it, they don't cause anything they "do". Ergo, no ability to choose between doing and not doing, there's no responsibility. And (almost?) all animals, not having full self-awareness, operate solely on instinct making them innocent and without the ability to choose as well. A human with moral free will, can choose to override his inherent programming using his understanding that he is like his fellow humans to choose whether to honor their rights as equal to his own, or violate them to his perceived benefit.

Because.... er... I'm not?

I'm sorry that you would be unable to find meaningfulness in existence if all is determined. I do not have that problem.

Please enlighten me. Are you saying you have meaning (how when your mental strings are being pulled by inanimate natural law), or you don't have it and don't want it?

Er... okay? You have a... interesting way of interpreting these things. Please understand that this is not at all how I interpret these things and I do not have this "advantage" you seem to think that I have.

Then how do you interpret these things?

Er... okay? See things as you will, I guess; doesn't make it correct. Given the rudeness demonstrated here and the lack of active listening, you'll have to forgive me if I feel disinclined to continue this conversation.

Rudeness? I think your problem is that I am listening. I'm Alice trying to make sense of the Cheshire Cat diplaying nothing but a toothy smile....and a smirk. You say you're not an anarchist, but won't actually come out and say that you aren't or what it is that you are. All I see is someone who's calling this "debate" a conversation, and whose inclination to leave is being driven by a lack of domination.

I'm motivated ultimately by Truth. What motivates you?

 

[Quintessence]

Status quo....IOW freedom squelching, elite double-standard promoting, government overarching control, socialism?

Not how I would describe things, but if that's how you interpret things, so be it. Things are as they are. I'm quite content accepting that which is instead of constantly making myself unhappy by wishing they could be different.

What they are is rights. What you said yourself is that "all things have the right to do what they are able to do", which implies no restrictions. But, btw, a rock and a tree don't have will, and without it, they don't cause anything they "do". Ergo, no ability to choose between doing and not doing, there's no responsibility. And (almost?) all animals, not having full self-awareness, operate solely on instinct making them innocent and without the ability to choose as well. A human with moral free will, can choose to override his inherent programming using his understanding that he is like his fellow humans to choose whether to honor their rights as equal to his own, or violate them to his perceived benefit.

I'm an animist (i.e., all things have "will" or agency as individuals), and on top of that, a determinist, so don't expect me to agree with what you've said here. I have no interest in you agreeing with me, however, but nor do I feel particularly inclined at this time to share my perspective on an animistic worldview coupled with determinism. I don't think that would have any benefit for either of us given what you say motivates you - Truth with a capitol T - instead of seeing truths in all things and discussing in the spirit of mutual understanding and learning.

Please enlighten me. Are you saying you have meaning (how when your mental strings are being pulled by inanimate natural law), or you don't have it and don't want it?

Meaningfulness transcends the idea of choice. Meaning is found in witnessing the beauty of a sunrise and experiencing the awe of it. Meaning is found in the relationships and connections we have with the world around us. Meaning is found in the stories we tell ourselves and others. Meaning can be found in accepting that which is and making peace with it. Meaning can be found in anything, and anywhere.

Then how do you interpret these things?

It's not just about interpretation. You seemed to imply that determinists are some sort of suicidal, fatalistic, immoral and unethical reprobates. It's why I felt what you said was incredibly rude, because insinuating something like that is... well... yeah. I hold myself to standards of conduct (i.e., ethics, virtues, and/or morals) as much as anyone else, and being neither omniscient nor omnipresent, I behave under the illusion of "free will" even though I reject that it is how the world actually operates. What it really affects for me is that I have a hard time being judgmental and condemning of others and accept people for who and what they are. It also means I find punitive types of "justice" to be troubling, though perhaps inevitable and necessary. It is a mindset that encourages a universal lovingkindness and acceptance of all things, as well as inner peace, contentment, and happiness.

I'm motivated ultimately by Truth. What motivates you?

Pretty much what my signature says, as far as my participation on the forums goes.

 

[Mukkled]

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

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Not how I would describe things, but if that's how you interpret things, so be it. Things are as they are. I'm quite content accepting that which is instead of constantly making myself unhappy by wishing they could be different.

So you'd be content being a slave down on the plantation, or having everything you'd earned confiscated by the town bully, or being strung up as an example for being....different? How would you describe things?

I'm an animist (i.e., all things have "will" or agency as individuals), and on top of that, a determinist, so don't expect me to agree with what you've said here. I have no interest in you agreeing with me, however, but nor do I feel particularly inclined at this time to share my perspective on an animistic worldview coupled with determinism.

Good decision.

I don't think that would have any benefit for either of us given what you say motivates you - Truth with a capitol T - instead of seeing truths in all things and discussing in the spirit of mutual understanding and learning.

Exactly what does discussing things in a spirit of mutual understanding and learning mean to you, and do you think I've not been doing that? BTW, I capitalize Truth because it's my God, and I believe everything that exists, including that which is imagined, to be Truth. In a nutshell, the aspects of Truth are knowledge, justice, love and beauty---objective to subjective.

Meaningfulness transcends the idea of choice. Meaning is found in witnessing the beauty of a sunrise and experiencing the awe of it. Meaning is found in the relationships and connections we have with the world around us. Meaning is found in the stories we tell ourselves and others. Meaning can be found in accepting that which is and making peace with it. Meaning can be found in anything, and anywhere.

Substitute Truth for meaningfulness and I pretty much agree. It's just that Truth/meaningfulness doesn't transcend the idea of choice. Without will, there is no choosing, and without choice there is no will.

It's not just about interpretation. You seemed to imply that determinists are some sort of suicidal, fatalistic, immoral and unethical reprobates.

None of that. Determinists, that is beings who only react as they've been programmed, have no will--puppets on strings as it were.

It's why I felt what you said was incredibly rude, because insinuating something like that is... well... yeah.

Well...........what?

I hold myself to standards of conduct (i.e., ethics, virtues, and/or morals) as much as anyone else, and being neither omniscient nor omnipresent, I behave under the illusion of "free will" even though I reject that it is how the world actually operates.

How can you hold yourself to standards of conduct if you have no will? You behave under the illusion of free will even though you reject it?

?????????

What it really affects for me is that I have a hard time being judgmental and condemning of others and accept people for who and what they are.

I do too, but justice requires isolation, and I can only accept a Hitler so far.

It also means I find punitive types of "justice" to be troubling, though perhaps inevitable and necessary. It is a mindset that encourages a universal lovingkindness and acceptance of all things, as well as inner peace, contentment, and happiness.

What happens when an immovable object meets an indestructible force? How can you accept all things when there are those who only want to watch the World burn? I think it's obvious, if there's any meaning to human life here, it's that this is a test.

Pretty much what my signature says, as far as my participation on the forums goes.

That which we need to believe may or may not coincide with realty. "Need" is all to often conflated with blind faith.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

How is that, if freedom doesn't exist?

 

[leibowde84]

How is that, if freedom doesn't exist?

I think he was referring to "absolute freedom."

 

[Quintessence]

None of that. Determinists, that is beings who only react as they've been programmed, have no will--puppets on strings as it were.

...

How can you hold yourself to standards of conduct if you have no will? You behave under the illusion of free will even though you reject it?

You have some very strange and incorrect ideas about determinists. There is nothing about determinism that requires an agent to lack will as a result.

I think I'm done with this conversation.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think he was referring to "absolute freedom."

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.

You have some very strange and incorrect ideas about determinists. There is nothing about determinism that requires an agent to lack will as a result.

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

 

[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

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.