One could even go so far as to argue that freedom to change things, no matter how insignificant, is the most important ability that anyone or any thing could possess. Because in a world without opportunities such as freedom, what’s the point of living at all? Works Cited Feinberg, Joel. "The Concept of Freedom." Social Ethics: Classical & Applied.
On one end of the continuum is the belief in total free will, on the other end is the belief that free will does not exist. However, there is middle ground in a third concept by which has pieces of both sides contributing to this one notion. This concept is compatibilism, which believes somewhat like determinists, that the universe operates with law like order. Thus, the past determines the future, and though compatibilists believe this they also believe some of the actions taken by humans really are free. Though every action is free to a compatibilist there is no way by which something couldn’t not happen, therefore everything is determined.
It is debatable as to whether we are free to make our own choices or not. There is a fair range in people's ideas on our freedom. The three main perspectives on our freedom, however, are determinism, indeterminism and compatibilism. The belief that all our choices are determined by forces beyond our control is called determinism. Determinists believe that every event is a result of a previous one.
Taking this into consideration, the meaning of freedom can further be explored. Perhaps it can be defined as having the liberty to choose who/what the ruler is to be. For, since nothing can exist without having some form of rule, if people are not permitted to choose what the ruling factor is, then that would not be considered having freedom.
The concept of liberty is important to this very day. Liberty initially means to be fundamentally free within ones society from any types of oppression, either from higher authority or from having different form ideologies that can be political or social. Liberty is a form of power that lets one act on their sets and values. In this paper, concept of liberty will be discussed on behalf of two philosophers, John Locke and Jean- Jacques Rousseau. Although liberty provides one to act as they please, there can be different forms of liberty, which are developed naturally by the state of nature and socially through development of human reasoning; state of nature is based on absolute freedom, while socially liberty is restricted.
Freedom has a different meaning to each individual thus making it hard to find a clear concise definition. When referring to freedom these words are often associated with freedom: Liberty, independence, sovereignty, autonomy, privilege, immunity, and indulgence. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and justice. Independence is granted by freedom in the sense that an outside party does not control you. To gratify ones desires by whichever ways they choose is freedom through indulgence.
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.
They argue that even if the actions are predetermined, people are free in other ways that are enough to consider them blameworthy for their actions. Whatever the forces that determine an action (biology, social conditions, upbringing, god whatever) does not cripple our ability to act according to our free will. The compatibilist attitude is in vogue since a long time the forces that determine the action (role of determinism) have been evolving since then but the basic idea, the fact that we do a particular thing even though we don’t really choose what we want to do, we do only as we choose to do. This is put in a better way by T.M Scanlon ‘ Even If our attitudes and actions are fully explained by genetic and environmental factors, it is till true that we have these attitudes and that our actions express them.’ According to Fried this is the ‘indigestible common core of compatibilism’ that we are blameworthy for doing what we could not help but do. Fried argues that blaming a person for doing something which one cannot help his action is indigestible.
It upholds freedom as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize independence, freedom of choice and also emphasizing constitutional freedom. In order for humans to make their choices freely, morality has to be involved. In the sense that humans can be able to understand the choices they make, the effects the choices they make may have and whether it is good or evil. This is quite easy to understand and I believe that we all have free-will to do whatever we want at whatever time we want to because human behavior is the result of the decisions based on free-will rather than the results of deterministic influences.
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. However, his argument allows us to understand that the fact that we govern ourselves under this Idea of Freedom shows that rational beings, at least in our perspective, are truly free.