Human Freedom

Introduction

            It is not without good reasons to suppose that human freedom belongs to one of the greatest attribute of being a human person. For no creature in this planet can exercise the same amount of contemplation and will into its actions as much as human persons do. Animals for instance are said not to possess human freedom since their activities, no matter how they resemble with acts of men, are ruled by instincts and not of choice. But while human freedom is a great gift to be thankful for, it nevertheless can be abused or misused. Many times over, the world has witnessed the despicable consequences of an unbridled exercise of human freedom. Which is why, through this paper, I would like to argue human freedom must be understood not as a license to do anything a person wants, but as a fundamental capacity to choose the kind of actions that promote one’s sense of personhood and nurture relationships as well.

Absolute vs. Relative Human Freedom

            What is difficult in studying human freedom is that it appears to have no singular definition universally accepted by all men and women. While nearly all people accept that human freedom is a matter of fact, it seems obvious that they too take its definition and interpretations differently. Some people understand freedom as license to do anything that they want; as indeed, some people believe that it needs to be exercised in view of certain guide or norms. Key to understanding this conflict therefore lies in defining whether the exercise of human freedom must be taken as an absolute power to do everything without reference to anything, or as a relative capacity to do something on account of certain norms or restrictions.

            Surely, it is only by right of mere logic that one should shun the first interpretation. Human freedom cannot be simply exercised as though it is one form of dispenser or magic; or that it enables a person to command everything according to one’s capricious desires. Experience would teach us that this is not just the kind of autonomy human persons have. For even when freedom is powerful, one cannot simply do anything without considering the effects – whether good or bad – it would engender on oneself and, more importantly, on other people. In a manner of speaking, the idea of absolute freedom, even when it is enticing, does not really hold water.

            Analogously, Cicero’s unique concept of ‘natural law’ can be cited to help shed light on the matter. Writing in the Commonwealth, he states: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application…” (cited in Cicero Dixit). Herein it would be evident that Cicero agues for the relative character of human affairs – i.e., for anyone to act truthfully, a person must act according to the dictates of human reason duly informed by nature. Cicero’s postulate therefore shuns the dangerous concept of absolute freedom. In other words, it appears that he would insist on arguing that the measure by which all human actions are to be judge lies in how such acts are said to conform to the ways of nature. For instance, if plants are by nature expected to grow and bear fruits, then human persons have an obligation to respect it. It would therefore amount to a gross violation of the plant’s nature to be plucked out of its roots for no reason at all. The crux of the matter lies in how human actions ought to be always done in reference to something else – i.e., something that is good, perhaps. And this can very well remind us of the Nicomachean ethics of Aristotle. According to Aristotle, true happiness is not about seeking to do whatsoever pleases the person. On the contrary, “happiness as the highest good for man consist in the fulfillment of his function as a man, in the ‘activity of the soul in accordance with (moral and intellectual) virtue’” (Lavine, 1982, p. 75).

            The second aspect of Cicero’s dictum concerns the universality of natural law. All things considered, this too is an important aspect to consider; for as a famous saying goes, “the law applies to all or to none at all”. The universal application of law teaches that all human persons, in so far as they are born with the gift of discernment, are necessitated to follow the dictates of human reason. This contention can remind us of the logic behind Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Kant’s dictum goes by this tall statement: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 1785, p. 23). In other words, the Categorical Imperative teaches that that a person should act only when he or she has taken into careful account the value of one’s action as though it can be applied to all the persons in the world. One for instance would not “kill” someone simply on the plain fact that such an act cannot be universally applied to all human persons; lest we speak of complete human annihilation. This is indeed a universal concept of ethics based on reason; for in here, “Kant asks man to realize his essence, to be what he truly is, a rational being” (Marias, 1967, p. 296).

By Way of Conclusion: My Personal Experience of Autonomy

            As a way to conclude, I would like to end this paper with an affirmation that the concept of relative freedom speaks volumes for my life as well. As a younger person, I must admit that I once treated freedom as my little way of indulging with what and where my impulses would lead me. Later on, I came to realize freedom is actually much more than being able to choose or decide upon something which I truly want. I realized that at the heart of freedom lies the sacred concept of accountability – i.e., that I have to firstly be responsible for my actions, and secondly be answerable for any effects which my actions engender. In nurturing relationships, this is especially true. I have noticed that I cannot always insist on doing what I think is right. There are times when, in wanting to follow my selfish inclinations, I hurt other people’s feelings in the process. Eventually though, when I started to notice that there are persons who actually get to be affected by my personal decisions, therein I also realized that freedom is a “great power” which, according to a famous line of the movie Spiderman, “comes with great responsibility”.

References

“Cicero dixit”. (2008). Retrieved 21 August 2008, from     <http://users.colloquium.co.uk/~barrett/cicero.html>

Kant, I. (1785). “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Retrieved 21 August 2008, from <http://www.scribd.com/doc/2225702/kantfundamental143>

Lavine, T. (1982). From Socrates to Sartre. New York, Bantam Books.

Marias, J. (1967). History of Philosophy. New York, Dover Publications, Incorporated.