Is it better to live in the extreme of an ideal or one more tempered? I will seek to answer some of these questions bring us to the conclusion that moderation in both universalism and the balance of power is best at preserving individual liberty and forming the best government. Locke defines liberty in two ways; firstly as liberty in nature where man is free from a superior power and lives only under the laws of nature, secondly as liberty in society where man is under no law or legislative power, except under those to which he has consented (Locke, 22). Locke is stressing that true liberty is the supreme freedom of the individual who must only act in accordance with the laws of nature. The authority and laws of society are only legitimate by consent and can be struck down by the collective will of individuals.
Human Freedom Freedom in mind, freedom in nature, and freedom in subjectivity of individual are three kinds of freedoms. However, freedom should be expressed within the limits of reason and morality. Having freedom equals having the power to think, to speak, and to act without externally imposed restrains. As a matter of fact, finding freedom in order to live free is the common idea in Plato with "The Allegory of the Cave"; Henry David Thoreau with " Where I lived and What I lived for"; and Jean Paul Sartre with " Existentialism". Generally, Plato, Thoreau, and Sartre suggested that human life should be free.
However, one is not forced to give up their rights, one chooses to do so by residing within the sovereign state’s territory and also by partaking in voting. He freely chooses to give up his natural rights for the common good. Even though, a man gives up some of his rights, he is protected by the rights given to him by the state, which cannot be taken away such as proprietorship. Between the balance of individual rights and rights of the general will, man still remains free because of the choice he makes to reside in that territory. Work Cited Cottingham, John.
Rousseau thought that civil freedom was th... ... middle of paper ... ... general will” (Bertram, 12). Rousseau also states citizens are “forced to be free” in The Social Contract (Bertram, 12). This is basically saying that we are free as long as we act within the guidelines as enforced and interpreted by local and regional government. The irony in this can differ greatly within our own social contract (i.e. the Constitution of the USA).
Free will, is having the ability to act based on our own desires and choosing which desires we would like to act on. In the philosophical field of Metaphysics this definition is the most universal way we discuss free will. When we think of the phrase free will, we think of the choices we make that impact our lives. Are our decisions really our own or are they products of outside forces? Is our destiny predetermined by nature?
The one thing on which Locke lays great emphasis throughout the Treatise is that the chief end or purpose for which the state or commonwealth is formed is making secure to the citizens the natural right to life, liberty and property which they had in the state of nature. In this state of nature, according to Locke, men were born free and equal: free to do what they wished without being required to seek permission from any other man, and equal in the sense of there being no natural political authority of one man over another. He quickly points out, however, that "although it is a state of liberty, it is not a state of license," because it is ruled over by the law of nature which everyone is obliged to obey. While Locke is not very specific about the content of the law of nature, he is clear on a few specifics. First, that "reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it" and second, that it teaches primarily that "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life liberty or possessions."
He claims that freedom is simply the absence of an external hindrance. De Beauvoir believes that everyone is essentially free to decide how to deal with facticity, and that the critical endeavor in life should be to strive for freedom. Hobbes’ perspective on freedom in society overshadows de Beauvoir’s attempt to describe freedom of the individual due to her controversial claims and absence of solutions to the problems she presents.
Since we know that the universal principle of morality is derived from a rational being’s will due to the Formula of Autonomy, we can therefore conclude freedom is the basis for the universal principle of morality. In a sense, rational beings are defined by our concept of freedom. As humans, we look at the world through the perspective of humans; what we know about the world is from observations and experiences. Therefore, we cannot know what the world is truly like. This may sound disheartening, and Kant admits that freedom is merely a concept we apply to ourselves as rational beings, and thus is something we can never be sure about.
Human Beings as Being Genuinely Free To be able to answer this question successfully we must first understand what is meant by the term 'genuinely free.' By this do we mean to have limitless freedom where each choice is our own or rather freedom within certain boundaries? There are of course many different views which consider the extent of our freedom and what being free really means, ranging from ultimate, unlimited freedom to us having absolutely no freedom. If we are to believe that human beings are completely free we are likely to accept the Libertarian view: By liberty, then we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may (David Hume) Libertarianism suggests that we are entirely free to make a morally responsible decision. Libertarianism does consider the fact that some aspects of life are causally determined; however these determined aspects are only affected by the inner self of the moral agent which in itself is uncaused.
To what degree is a rational agent allowed to pursue his own goals or to choose one action over another? Both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill answer the question of what makes a person free. Two different conceptions of individual freedom and autonomy are present by them and for this reason these philosopher differ on why it is that freedom and self-governance should be valued. In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant puts forward a normative conception of freedom and autonomy where by one has the capacity to deliberate and give himself laws. It is based on this claim that he makes his argument that autonomy should be valued because it is the sole principle of our moral law.