To act without reason and to do only as one pleases does not make a person free. Freedom cannot truly exist if we only view freedom as the ability to perform any action without a cause or reason. A person driven solely by their passions and nothing else is not free, and a person who uses reason to follows orders is not a slave. Spinoza describes freedom by writing that we are free only when the causes of our actions are solely based on our decisions, and we are only slaves when the causes of our actions are placed upon us by external forces. In this examination Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise, I will first briefly explain Spinoza’s theory of the law of nature and then explain how it pertains to freedom. I will then discuss the natures of the subject and the slave and show how reason establishes freedom.
It is each person’s natural right to do everything in their power to obtain whatever it that they deem necessary for their own survival, while anyone who would prevent them from taking something would be considered an enemy. Spinoza writes that it is “Each person’s natural right therefore is determined not by sound reason but by desire and power.” The concept of self-interest is a fundamental law of human nature, and self-preservations causes human beings to seek power for themselves. A person driven by their own personal desire does not exist as a free person. Freedom is when that person follows a line of thinking that strives to continue their own existence. In order for a person to safeguard themselves from danger, a collective effort can be made to protect the group’s rights as a whole. Therefore, it is reasonable line of thinking to instill a single entity or group of entities to place and enforce laws to ensure th...
... middle of paper ...
... necessary to ensure that they obtain it. In this state, people are controlled by their passions and should be considered slaves. By introducing reason, people can see that a singular entity is weaker than a group. Reason allows for the individuals to control their actions and emotions and not be controlled by them. The need for a command structure within the group can give rise to the sovereign, and while the sovereign’s responsibility is to make decisions for the whole of the community, freedom is still present for the individual. Freedom exists, because the person knows how the decisions of the sovereign will benefit the community and also themselves. Freedom is obtained through the use of reason to decrease the power of self-enslaving passions. The person is guided by his reasoning when they obey the sovereign and controls their passions to do what is necessary.
freedom as long as one does not disturb others in their state of nature; in this
In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that this problem can be dissolved by the clarification of language usage and the clarification of what freedom is in relationship to those things that oppose freedom or restrain it. In either case, what is at stake is the free will of an agent, and whether or not that agent is morally responsible. What is to be seen from a discussion of these arguments is the applicability and validity of these two philosophies to situations where one must make a choice, and whether or not that person is acting freely and is thus responsible given his current situation. In this vein, the case of Socrates’ imprisonment and whether or not he acted freely in respect to his decision to leave or stay in prison can be evaluated by the discussion of the arguments presented in respect to the nature of free will in its reconciliation with determinism in the compatibilist vein and its absence in the causality of hard determinism.
As the Declaration of Independence states, everyone should be able to uphold the rights of “the enjoyment of life and liberty…and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety” (“Declaration of Independence”). A well organized government can ensure these rights.
...o self-preservation, and a lack of morals coupled with an inability to establish ownership of property will eventually lead to a state of war. This of course necessitates a ruling state to determine what is good and evil, and to enforce morality and justice. Again Locke claims the opposite, that due to the existence of natural law and an enlightened self-interest, human beings by nature are social and peaceful creatures capable of governing themselves.
The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three views, which refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as reject one main argument from the other views. As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsibly for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualify as a human act.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
In Locke’s state of nature, men exist in a “state of perfect freedom” over their actions, possessions, and persons, within the law of nature (Locke 269). They do not depend on other men for anything. This complete intellectual and physical freedom is a natural state, but is not a perfect state. Locke acknowledges that full freedom, without a government to moderate it, doe...
Freedom is having the right to own, act, think, and speak without any restrictions from the outside. Ever since the New World was discovered, people have been fighting for their independence till this day. People of other colors and race have been forced to do labor without their consent. Today, those same people have been blamed or accused of crimes that were not committed by them despite of being free. Freedom has different meanings and those meanings change overtime; however sometimes the significance of freedom does not change.
The American Ideological Consensus is that “…the American people have shared much of the same ideals, the same basic principles, and the same patterns of belief” (McClenaghan 104). When America filled itself with ideologically homogenous people, their beliefs started to define our nation and became American identities. If asked what they think of America, peoples of other nations would say that the roads are made of glass, opportunity is in the air, and civil rights are plentiful. These accounts maybe accentuated; however, the underlying message is that the American people have more freedoms then the peoples of other nations do. The most widely known American identity is freedom, and even though that American identity has been tried and tested throughout much of its history, it can still be said that America is a land of liberty.
Throughout history freedom has had many different meanings and definitions; based on race, gender, and ethnicity. According to the dictionary freedom means the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint (“freedom” def. 1). Freedom may seem like something given to everyone however it was something workers had to fight for. Not everyone believed that workers’ rights needed to be changed, which led to a long battle between workers, employers and the government. To the working class people freedom meant making higher wages, having regulated hours, workable conditions and the right to free speech.
“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective. John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary for being free.
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
Freedom, a seven lettered word that varies in meaning for every individual. Freedom is the basis of human rights, without the freedom to do as one please, one feels confine. This confinement leads to many interesting tales of human curiosity expanding and exploring, such as Leonardo DiCaprio fascination with corpses or the escaping of where freedom is not a necessity such as North Korea. There are many aspects to freedom, it is reflected in actions, decisions and thought. In existentialism, one’s philosophical approach is that one is free and is the deciding factor of everything that they choose in their life. In existentialism since one has ultimate freedom in everything, without any authority deciding for them, this vast array of thought that can come for anyone from anywhere creates hell for others, because one is unable to control others.
...g they need to live, and its effects can be seen in religion, ethics, and many facets of life. In most religions, people use free will to choose good over bad so that the can be closer to whatever higher power they believe in. They also use their reason because reason, or intellect, knows there is a God, the highest good, and will chooses this good. Similarly, ethics comes from free will because human beings try to consistently choose what is in most accordance with God. People can also choose not to believe in any religion or moral code at all. David Hume, defines liberty as the, “power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will.” Aquinas similarly stated that human beings desire things, and make decisions to pursue these things. Being a human being means using free will for good and that is why free will is what human nature is.