“Freedom” is an idea that seems straightforward but only if you don’t think about it very much. To illustrate, let’s consider the essential
elements. From a layperson’s point of view, there is something you wish to do. However, there is also a restraint on behavior that circumscribes your actions to an undesirable extent. When you become “free,” you release yourself from these fetters. Picture a prisoner chained to a wall. When the chains are unlocked, he is set free. Stated more generally, there are two forces pulling in different directions – (1) a restraining force that seeks to limit your movement and (2) an internal or “you” force that seeks to purse some goal or activity. When you can follow your internal goals, you are free. When you cannot follow your goals, you are constrained.
This little definition probably does a good job of summarizing the commonsense view of freedom. Nevertheless, I have a concern with it. There is a questionable assumption built into the definition. The aforementioned characterization suggests that our internal desires function as the source of our freedom. The external restrictions that we encounter are the things that take freedom away. If you accept this point of view, then to be free you should follow your desires. If you do otherwise, then you have compromised your personal autonomy. I’m skeptical. I believe we are missing an important part of the story. ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
Recent Comments