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.
A dictator would be needed, but by doing so, the state is once again liable to arbitrary rule and the people lose their freedom. By avoiding the problems of traditional governments, the general will faces a different set of problems. The state ruled by the general will is clearly an imperfect and undesirable state. A society in which dissenting thoughts are stifled and scorned is not conducive to arguments and the process of creating good legislation. But Rousseau’s idea of freedom is the right for people to rule themselves by conforming to the general will.
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.
In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process.
The key difference between Hobbes and de Beauvoir’s perception of freedom is the fact that Hobbes focuses on liberty of several whereas de Beauvoir focuses on liberty of the individual. De Beauvoir fails to distinguish how particular situations do not allow for freedom, and is also contradictory in her statements; therefore Hobbes’ view should be accepted. Hobbes discusses the natural condition in which every man can is free to do what he desires; every man is equal. However, because of this, no one is free to have what they desire. Total freedom is an absolute lack of freedom.
This then leads to helping to ensure that there is individual freedom and rights, and that individuals have autonomy. Liberals tend to be suspicious of the government and the power that they posses to limit an individual and their freedom. By limiting the government, it makes sure that they are not using their power to target citizens and to constrain their liberty. Friedrich von Hayek (1960) debated for the rule of law, where individuals under this law can make choices and act upon them without constraint. With the rule of law and separation of powers, it ensures that no single person can rule over the people and rob them of their freedom.
Rousseau argues that to hand over one’s general rights of ruling oneself to another person or body constitutes a form of slavery and that to recognize such an authority would amount to an abduction of moral agency. Rousseau favours a society where the general will, or will of the whole, prevails. In doing so, this allows people to be seen as equals and not have their voice shut out. Rousseau believes it is important for people to participate and have a direct say in decisions and important matters. Rousseau argues that people attain their freedom through a transformation from the state of nature to civil society-one can be both free and subject to political authority.
In the question between the conflicts of freedom, where two persons individual freedoms create a zero-sum game, the idea of social freedom emerges, and the idea that it is possible for there to be restrictions on an individual's freedom that are morally desirable. To best, and most simply explain in what sense we want people to be free, a balance must be found between the extent to which society may restrict an individual's freedom, and vice versa. As can be seen by observing politics throughout the ages, it is finding this balance that has proven to be the most challenging aspect of the ongoing question of freedom.
Patterson refers to Sovereignal or organic freedom as basically the authority to act as one pleases, without respect for others, or simply the capacity to enforce one’s will on another. Civic freedom is defined as the capacity of adult members of a community to partake in its life and authority. (Walton Jr & Smith, 2015) Foner argues four philosophies of freedom. He favors the term “rights” a well-recognized word by the nation’s leaders on the eve of the Civil War. The natural rights were rights or freedoms inherited within humanity.
And it will be obvious, from that point on, when someone tries to take your freedom away. What about personal rights. Do we have the right to free speech? What about a minimum standard of living? Or the right to bear arms and to vote?