Freedom

The aim of this essay is to discuss the concept of freedom and how it may be applied within society. Before considering how we may offer freedom within a society it may be best to discuss why freedom is desirable to an individual. Many people are willing to fight and die for their freedom but that alone is no justification for why society should offer freedoms. A logical or absolute reason is required for why freedoms are an advantage to individuals and to society. I happen to value my freedom highly but I am also aware that people hold differing views on what is important to them. It would be unreasonable of me to assert that freedom is “good” for no better reason than it is good for me. What properties of freedom allow it to be universally accepted as good regardless of the dispositions and preferences of the individual?

The best way of showing how freedom can be universally, beneficially offered, regardless of the individuals disposition is by comparing it to something more tangible. For the sake of the discussion we will compare the giving of an individual freedom to giving them a pet dog. In relation to dogs the individual may like them or dislike them (or have no real preference). There are also two states of dog ownership; one can own a dog or one can not own a dog. All those who like dogs will benefit from being given a pet dog however all those who do not like dogs will resent the gift. Even if they are able to reject the gift they may still resent those who got dogs as they got nothing of use to themselves. Peoples dispositions, i.e. liking dogs or not liking dogs, will determine the outcome of being given one. Accounting for each persons particular dispositions is impossible for large societies. You cannot reasonably give all those who like dogs a dog and all those who do not something else.

If we shall remove potential resentment and jealousy from the example so that we can focus on dogs alone; it would be reasonable to state that for all those who like dogs we should give a dog and all those who do not we should not give them a dog. What we should give people in this instance is entirely based on their dispositions which we have already asserted that it is impractical to know. Giving a dog is the opposite of not giving a dog and by doing one of those actions we rule out the other. Whatever we do, if done universally, must fail to suit one set of dispositions within our society.

Let us now change to offering from dogs to freedom and see if the same trouble arises. To state that some people do not like freedom may be hard to substantiate but it is certainly reasonable to say that many people like to follow rules and guidance and that certain restrictions to their freedoms give them security. These people who like to be lead we will describe as disliking freedom for the purposes of this example. If freedom were like dogs we would find that we needed to give freedom to those that desired it and remove it from those that did not. We would again also find that un-knowable dispositions dictated these differences in people. With dogs the act of having one removes the ability to not have one (at that point in time). With the tangible dog the two options are mutually exclusive. The concept of freedom however is really rather unique in this respect. Having freedom includes both options to satisfy both types of disposition. It is like saying having a dog is both having a dog and not having a dog simultaneously. Obviously that is a nonsensical statement with dogs but for freedom it is true. Having freedom is having options, the more freedom one gains the more options one has, there is no real opposite to freedom in the same way that you either have or don't have a dog. With freedom you can have more or less but by having more you do not exclude having less. Having less freedom is always included within a greater degree of freedom.

If we take our society and do not offer any freedom to all the people we may satisfy all those who like to be lead in the same way we would satisfy all those who did not like dogs by not giving them one, but we would fail to satisfy all those who value their freedom. If however, we provide freedom to our society, unlike with the gifting of dogs, we not only satisfy those who desire freedom but we also satisfy those who do not. Part of the freedom offered to all people includes, by definition, the ability to choose against using that freedom. By this logic we can safely argue that freedom is good regardless of disposition and can reasonably be offered to society as an advantage to all.

Having asserted that freedom is a good thing we now need to consider how society may offer freedoms to individuals and in order to do this I should like to first de-construct our understanding of how freedom is manifest. Hobbes defines freedom (well, liberty...) as “the absence of external impediments to motion”. We are solely concerned with the freedoms of people and may refine this broad definition of Hobbes' to be more specific in relation to people. What Hobbes calls motion I should like to call action which relates to any activity performed by a person such as eating or talking. As people are conscious beings and our actions are not purely reflex, each of our non-reflex actions must have a prerequisite. The prerequisite to human action I should like to call choice, in that someone first chooses to eat and apple and then performs the actions involved in eating the apple. Our refined Hobbsian definition of freedom becomes “the absence of external impediments to choice and action”.

When we eat an apple we are freely choosing to eat it and freely performing the action associated with eating. All freedoms of action also require the freedom of choice so a distinction between the two kinds of freedom in these circumstances is meaningless. Because of this any freedom that requires both a specific action and a choice we shall simply call a freedom of action. If we were free to choose something but unable to perform the associated action we should call that a desire. Examples of freedom of choice which have no specific associated action are better understood as opinions or beliefs.

If freedoms require the absence of impediments it is necessary to understand how an impediment might be manifested. An impediment to action is easy to understand as it is only the possibility of something that determines how free one might be to do that thing. I may choose to flap my arms and fly as I can imagine doing so, however flight under those conditions is impossible, and so I am not free to perform that action. However an impediment to choice is based only on knowledge. If I am aware of a choice I am free to make that choice regardless of the possibility of any associated action. The only impediment to choice that exists is that of ignorance, either by lacking any knowledge on the subject or by having the wrong knowledge.  

Having made clear the two distinct forms of freedom available to an individual we may describe how a society may best offer freedoms to people. To best facilitate the idea of increasing freedom of action to people a society must look to ensure the availability of services and their ongoing improvement. By providing a means of transport people are granted a physical freedom or greater freedom of action. Health services provide freedoms to individuals by improving the quality of life and extending it. Improvements to both goods and services used in society increase the efficiency within which any physical freedom they grant is dispensed. There may be many different ways to achieve these increases to freedom but the maxim to do so is always better goods and better services. A society looking to increase freedoms should sensibly invest in advancing technology.

Increasing the idea of freedom of choice is less tangible than a freedom of action and may be approached in a few ways. I asserted that ignorance of a subject or inaccurate understanding of the subject were the only ways in which freedom of choice may be removed. This is not to say a choice may not be influenced or biased by other factors which we shall return to shortly but presently we are concerned with the manner in which society may grant greater freedoms. Education is the main method societies provide the individual with increased freedoms of choice by increasing the individuals understanding of things. Much of what is taught within the education system does not overlap much with the manner in which people live their lives. A great understanding of calculus rarely provides new options to how one may act in a real life situation. It is from each other and the observation of social interactions where we tend to expand our horizons of choice. Education greatly facilitates social interaction without really having it as the main focus. I should like to see education focus more on teaching people how to choose and not just to read and write.

Misinformation is a greater threat to freedom of choice than the lack of knowledge. Understanding is rather like a jigsaw puzzle as each piece confirms and supports each other piece, inferences may be made about something unknown based on all the known parts. When a single piece of the puzzle is in the wrong place but believed to be in the correct position any assumptions based on that wrong knowledge will also be wrong. Misinformation can undo the work of education and it can propagate, so how might a society minimise false understandings? It is fair to say that it is impossible to ensure that all understandings had by a society are logically sound and accurate yet there are ways to reduce misinformation and consequently increase freedom. I would suggest that for a society to maximise freedom of choice (which is required for a pure democracy to function like a free market; to the greatest net advantage) it must be entirely truthful in all matters. Being truthful is not however complete disclosure, it is still reasonable to have military secrets provided that the reasons any secrets are kept are honestly explained. Complete honesty in state, business matters and in education are the first steps in reducing misinformation, they are the main areas in society which may really impact the populous and influence by example. As honesty and accuracy gain esteem as virtues promoting freedom, other areas in society in which no control may be had are encouraged to follow suit.

"To formulate any satisfactory modern ethic of human relationship, it will be essential to recognize the necessary limitations of men's power over the non-human environment, and the desirable limitations of their power over each other." - Bertrand Russell.

This essay has so far shown that freedom is a good and desirable thing for the individual and then has gone on to discuss what methods society may use to maximise the freedom of the individual. We must now look to find a satisfactory modern ethic concerning freedom such that it is useful and definable in the context of society. To have absolute freedom is to be omnipotent, the individual must have complete knowledge of all things and the power to achieve any action. Omnipotence may be an end goal for humanity, weather possible or not it is still a reasonable aim as each progression towards it is a beneficial one. Omnipotence is maximum freedom and therefore presumably the best situation for an individual to be in. We need not be concerned with omnipotence as it is not a reality, however, if society were to allow any possible action by any person it would cease to be a society and would result in anarchy. Society is a cooperative of peoples and must be concerned with not only increasing individual freedoms but also conserving those that already exist for all individuals. Where we proved that for the individual; maximum freedom, we must now concede that for society we can only offer maximum reasonable freedom.

If I were allowed complete freedom I would be able to kill another person, preventing me from doing so would deny me this freedom. If freedom is good we can use this example to show that preventing me from killing someone is “bad”. The reason that this is not a logically sound conclusion is that it only takes me, “the killer”, into consideration. Certainly by allowing me to freely kill I have greater freedom, but society includes all individuals, and by killing another I remove all of their freedoms. The freedom I would gain through being allowed to kill someone cannot surpass the “quantity” of freedom lost by that person due to being killed. From my perspective I may have a slight gain in freedom however the net change in freedom within society is reduced. Using this logic it is reasonable to assert that by limiting certain individual freedoms within society the total net freedom of that society may be increased.

This example focuses on what Russell refers to as the human element of society however a similar logic may be applied to freedoms concerning the non-human environment. Say I wished to burn all the oil and was somehow capable of such a feat. By doing so I have not directly harmed any person but I have removed the possibility of others being able to do so. Any freedom that does not directly concern another person (or one that is exacted on the non-human environment) must be repeatable or the changes reversible such that partaking of the freedom does not serve to remove it from others. Maximum reasonable freedom is therefore the greatest freedom allowable to the individual where interactions between the environment or other people exist in order to generate the greatest net freedom in society.

To generate the greatest freedom in society we must therefore restrict certain freedoms but a method to do so is required in order to achieve our aims. Restrictions may increase the net freedom of a group but they reduce the individuals freedom and so a method for finding the perfect balance is required. Too many laws and the individual is stifled, too few and the group exploits itself. A blanket statement such as – “a law may only exist if it serves to protect the freedom of an individual or prevent an individual from reducing the freedom of others” does cover all the sensible laws but it also includes many others that would result in the stifling of individuals. A degree of common sense is required in the formulation of laws and a sensible approach is a minimalist one. The fewer the laws the easier each one is to recall and adhere to, having less creates more gravity for each that remain and fewer laws will allow greater freedom to the individual.

An example of such a law that would be superfluous but that also falls within the blanket statement previously discussed would be one which prevented approaching someone in the street to consult them. This would be consistent with stopping the removal of freedoms as a person may not wish to be approached. It would however also stifle the individuals allowable conduct within a society and common sense dictates that the potential loss of freedom from such an act is negligible. No real harm has befallen the “victim”, potentially they may take offence and will lose a small amount of time. In situations like these a compromise is a far better solution than a law, this is because a law can only increase freedom to an individual by removing it from another where as a compromise or an alternative can increase the freedoms of all concerned. People are afforded places of privacy and may utilize those as much as they like yet in public places there is no requirement to leave others alone. This is the compromise presently offered by society and it seems reasonable, to pass a law to protect a minority of people who strongly dislike public encroachments upon their privacy would reduce the net freedom of society. Laws passed only to increase the net freedom will only ever protect a freedom the majority of the populous finds important.

It is also worth thinking about the degree of harm the loss of a freedom causes a person to suffer compared to any gain for society. In the previous example the harm caused was minimal however the usefulness of being able to approach people is fairly high. Not only would a law preventing these kinds of engagement reduce the net freedom of society based on our present dispositions but it would also reduce the net efficiency of society and the interactions that occur within it. It is worth asking each of the following questions when creating a law to ensure the law is sensible and to the advantage of society;

Does the law serve to protect the freedom of an individual or prevent an individual from reducing the freedom of others?

Does the law increase the net freedom of society?

Does a suitable compromise exist whereby a greater net freedom is found than by passing a law?

Does the law relate to all aspects of society and concern all people, ie is it universal? (if not then a “rule” should be provided rather than a law)

Does the introduction of the law prevent significant harm to an individual? If not does it cause any harm to society?

Now that we have seen the sorts of laws that should exist in society with the aim of promoting maximum reasonable freedom we can begin to think about how society is able to gain compliance from the populous. If a law is only intended to conserve freedoms then the manner in which prevention occurs is immaterial. If a murder is prevented then freedom is conserved. This means that there are numerous ways to approach the idea of conserving freedom. I could somehow make humans invulnerable and therefore make murder impossible. The freedom to murder people would be lost but the freedom to live would be conserved which is our initial aim. In reality the ability to make physical actions impossible is very limited and also impractical to implement. As such our primary method of conserving freedoms in society is to impose punishments as an incentive to the freedom of choice rather than only attempt to impede freedom of action. Laws represent a set of physical freedoms society wishes to restrict, as rules of conduct that if not adhered to, result in punishment. This means that performing the action is generally unhindered but the consequences of performing it are undesirable to the individual. It is reasonable to attempt to influence the freedom of choice rather than the associated action provided no misinformation is used. By influencing a choice rather than obscuring the choice with misinformation then no freedom of choice is lost.

There is no disadvantage to supplementing laws with physical hindrances provided they are economic and practical. A lock on a door makes it harder to steal what is behind the door where as a law only imposes consequences for actually stealing. Both of these preventative measures affect choice, but only one also affects the physical action. A lock on a door is much like a safety rail near a high drop, the aim of both is to reduce the chances of undesirable physical actions occurring. The law has far greater meaning and relevance in society than any form of physical hindrance as it demonstrates the moral dispositions of the populous. The appreciation and understanding of a law allow moral character to develop where as a system of limitations on freedoms that used only physical hindrances would cease to require individuals to think about their choices.

Rules were previously mentioned as an alternative to a law which only relates to specific areas of society. An example of such could be a code of conduct within a library, it is specific because it only relates to those who use the library. By breaking the rules (such as talking loudly and not stealing books which would still constitute a crime) the library is empowered to remove any privileges associated with library usage, but not to prosecute in a court of law and punish under the penal system. Often we call these kinds of rule a local bye-law however the usage of the term law misleading. Rules may appear to reduce freedoms but they only apply in situations where a system is set up to increase the degree of freedom. Rules serve to inform how a system works best, the more complex systems tend to require more rules. By making a distinction between rules and laws a society is better able to keep the number of laws to a minimum while suffering no diminishing functionality. Examples of areas where rules dominate over laws would be areas like the finance industry. Breaking the rules would mean that you were no longer able to partake in the system of finance and would presumably require a new profession but unless a theft or other actual law was broken no prosecutions would result.

To conclude this essay I should simply like to summarise each section in turn. Firstly we established that freedom was always good for the individual. We then moved on to discuss freedom in terms of choice and in terms of action. To maximise the former we asserted a need of education in society, truth in matters of state, and a general aim of increasing knowledge. To maximise freedoms of action we require our society to provide goods and services of an ever improving nature. We then curtailed our discussion with the realisation that in order to gain the greatest net freedom in society individuals are required to surrender certain freedoms that affect other individuals. The optimum method of discerning which freedoms a society needed to remove were debated with consideration given to common sense, compromise and consent. Once a sensible understanding had been obtained on the types of freedom that should not be given we looked at the methods available to state in order to impose these restrictions. In doing this we defined a difference between rules and laws and how using both may also increase freedoms. The summary conclusion of this essay is that society should offer the maximum reasonable freedom to individuals which may be ascertained by finding the greatest net freedom. In doing so many virtues are promoted such as honesty, creativity, faith and knowledge.