If you conceive of freedom as somehow the *right* to do anything you want , or the *right* to do anything you want with no ill consequences, then the entire reasoned structure of rights disintegrates into just another philosophy of might makes right. Take the example even of a desert island. Even there, a single person can not 'do anything they want' - not in the context of: *and continue living* or *continue living with comfort or security.* Reality itself dictates that the human being must spend of his/her life time acting based on reason to secure values necessary to continue living and live with any kind of comfort or security. How a human persists in conscious existence - what is necessary for that to occur - is dictated by the real nature of a human - his physiology - his physical needs - and the means (reason) - by which he must secure values in the existence in which he finds himself.
Here are some conclusions from the example:
Yes, on a desert island, you are free to do or not do anything, but only in the context that reality dictates that doing things incompatible with a human being persisting in existence or doing nothing, means death - (and usually a miserable death.) Are you free to attempt fire by rubbing water? Yes. Will you get fire? No. Are you free to eat nothing to live? Yes. Will you live? No. Are you free to rely on your skin to keep you warm in the winter? Yes. You will freeze. Are you free to rely on your physical strength and nails to hunt for game to eat? Yes. You will starve or be eaten by wild beasts.
You are free *in context* -- in the context of what reality dictates is necessary for you to live, to secure values to continue living, to secure a secure source of values, and to live in comfort. You are *not* free to disregard reality *and go on living, or living securely, or living comfortably*.
It is important at this point to differentiate two ideas. "Freedom" as described above, which can only be in context with the dictates of reality in regard to what is necessary for the class of being "human" to persist in the world, is one idea. "Freedom" in the sense of a *right* to liberty - a right to not be interfered with, is a concept that, again, only applies in a context. The context is the inter-relations between individual humans. There is no meaning for the concept "a right* if there is only one human in the world. Reality does not respect any "right" of the human to exist. The man must respect reality or die or be miserable. It is not a two way street. But when there are two individual humans, who survive by reasoned action in context of reality, now there are options with regard to how those two humans behave toward each other. They can ignore each other. They can forcibly attempt to violate the life or property or liberty of each other. Or they can respect the life, liberty, and property of each other. Or they can attempt a calculated opportunism of violating or respecting rights when it appears most advantageous.
The concept of a *right* is in the context of applying to every human as a common denominator BECAUSE it is a necessity for every human to survive by reasoned action to secure and consume necessary values. The irrational and therefore unethical (not really good for a human) choice is to include any behavior that violates REASON - as it is this same reasoned derivation of one's own necessities to live, be secure, and comfortable, that is violated when one violates another's reasoned rights. This is what sets the contextual boundaries of freedom conceived as a right to liberty - as each human to not be interfered with. It is this understanding that yields the reasoned necessary disposition toward any human's life as worthy of respect of itself, the reasoned necessity of liberty to act on reason in order to continue in existence, the reasoned necessity to own property (values) produced by reasoned action in order to continue in existence, and the reasoned necessity to defend against forcible attacks on any of these. Here are the right to life, liberty, property, justice.
The mistake so many make is to misconceive what freedom is, not keeping its definition in context of reality and the derivation of it as a right applying to every human because of its derivation from the necessities for each human to exist in reality. So this false idea of freedom as 'doing anything you want' is discarded those who misconceive freedom, because obviously that can not work in a society - in a group of interacting human individuals. But because freedom is misconceived as 'doing anything you want' , rights are really not understood and so that baby (rights) is thrown out with the bath water (misconceived freedom). It is error to think rights are fictions subject to the force of a sufficiently large and organized and powerful agency; that rights are what enough people say they are; that rights can be violated in the name of the definition of good on which a sufficient number of people agree. This is all error. You are left with the tyranny of force and fraud, rather than the rule of justice -- justice as derived from the noncontradictory identification of reality and the necessities of every human's life.
Here are some conclusions from the example:
Yes, on a desert island, you are free to do or not do anything, but only in the context that reality dictates that doing things incompatible with a human being persisting in existence or doing nothing, means death - (and usually a miserable death.) Are you free to attempt fire by rubbing water? Yes. Will you get fire? No. Are you free to eat nothing to live? Yes. Will you live? No. Are you free to rely on your skin to keep you warm in the winter? Yes. You will freeze. Are you free to rely on your physical strength and nails to hunt for game to eat? Yes. You will starve or be eaten by wild beasts.
You are free *in context* -- in the context of what reality dictates is necessary for you to live, to secure values to continue living, to secure a secure source of values, and to live in comfort. You are *not* free to disregard reality *and go on living, or living securely, or living comfortably*.
It is important at this point to differentiate two ideas. "Freedom" as described above, which can only be in context with the dictates of reality in regard to what is necessary for the class of being "human" to persist in the world, is one idea. "Freedom" in the sense of a *right* to liberty - a right to not be interfered with, is a concept that, again, only applies in a context. The context is the inter-relations between individual humans. There is no meaning for the concept "a right* if there is only one human in the world. Reality does not respect any "right" of the human to exist. The man must respect reality or die or be miserable. It is not a two way street. But when there are two individual humans, who survive by reasoned action in context of reality, now there are options with regard to how those two humans behave toward each other. They can ignore each other. They can forcibly attempt to violate the life or property or liberty of each other. Or they can respect the life, liberty, and property of each other. Or they can attempt a calculated opportunism of violating or respecting rights when it appears most advantageous.
The concept of a *right* is in the context of applying to every human as a common denominator BECAUSE it is a necessity for every human to survive by reasoned action to secure and consume necessary values. The irrational and therefore unethical (not really good for a human) choice is to include any behavior that violates REASON - as it is this same reasoned derivation of one's own necessities to live, be secure, and comfortable, that is violated when one violates another's reasoned rights. This is what sets the contextual boundaries of freedom conceived as a right to liberty - as each human to not be interfered with. It is this understanding that yields the reasoned necessary disposition toward any human's life as worthy of respect of itself, the reasoned necessity of liberty to act on reason in order to continue in existence, the reasoned necessity to own property (values) produced by reasoned action in order to continue in existence, and the reasoned necessity to defend against forcible attacks on any of these. Here are the right to life, liberty, property, justice.
The mistake so many make is to misconceive what freedom is, not keeping its definition in context of reality and the derivation of it as a right applying to every human because of its derivation from the necessities for each human to exist in reality. So this false idea of freedom as 'doing anything you want' is discarded those who misconceive freedom, because obviously that can not work in a society - in a group of interacting human individuals. But because freedom is misconceived as 'doing anything you want' , rights are really not understood and so that baby (rights) is thrown out with the bath water (misconceived freedom). It is error to think rights are fictions subject to the force of a sufficiently large and organized and powerful agency; that rights are what enough people say they are; that rights can be violated in the name of the definition of good on which a sufficient number of people agree. This is all error. You are left with the tyranny of force and fraud, rather than the rule of justice -- justice as derived from the noncontradictory identification of reality and the necessities of every human's life.
Comments