Liberty, an EDITED Revision of my First Approximation (Part 1)

Reflections, on the Subject of Freedom

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. — Paul Johnson, The Quotable Paul Johnson

The concept of freedom has been scratched into the stone surfaces of human experience in gritty, crimson hues. This sober testimony invites our attention, questioning both our personal commitment to human potential and our resolve to push back on depravity. Even the predominant skepticism of our day cannot entirely cordon-off this perplexing project. This because our human empathy and pain cannot be suppressed forever (tragedy and injustice finds us all, as do acts of kindness and mercy for that matter). Such experiential knowledge has the potential to animate our desire to find premises in support of sound conclusions that map the way to freedom.

What is freedom?

In the prosaic moments, such intensity of retrospection dissipates in the elevator music of domestic life. In the grocery shopping mindless melody - we don't typically give a second thought to what is meant by, free-parking, sugar-free or freedom of movement. We all grasp the concept, take it for granted for the most part. Indeed, the diabetic and health professional will have more than a passing interest in sugar-free products. Likewise, we all have varying degrees of vested interest in being free of pain. Yet, such a commit generally does little to undermine our belief that reading the instructions on the medicine bottle will inform, yet not determine our choice to ingest the prescribed dosage.

A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don’t. Deconstruction deconstructs itself, and disappears up its own behind, leaving only a disembodied smile and a faint smell of sulphur. ― Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey.

A common error then in the definition of the word freedom has long fascinated me. This is because it captures two things we want to include in the idea of moral freedom in particular.

Conflicting Conditions
A society is free if,... liberty is maximized and people are required to take responsibility for their actions.(Definitions of this sort are fairly common, especially on the internet. However, if a person is required to do something, then that person's liberty is not maximized.) From the website www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/conflict.htm

In argument shorthand, reconciling the following claims may be helpful as a starting point.

1. All things are permissible (within a forum for action)
2. All things are not beneficial (within a forum for action)

What is understood in [1] are matters of indifference (the biblical context). The etymology of the term indifference, from Greek adiaphora, describes matters of custom that have no direct moral implications. In principle, the idea of indifference, has to do with what is possible in the actual world, conjoined with some standard or parameters for moral reasoning (which make such distinctions cogent). To simplify then - freedom entails something omitted from what is the case. Hence, all things are permissible (non-moral) vs some things are not beneficial (via criteria of health for example) which deals with the conflicting conditions definition. Still, if one is free to roam within maximum possible borders, then the forum for action is free of unjustified limits or interference (with respect to roaming). That is, freedom like logic entails necessary parameters. But what of the moral case? The right to life enshrined in international covenants reflect significant agreement regarding a particular basic value claim. Yet, there is a broad discrepancy about the premises given in support to such a claim (justification). The liberal remedy to this plurality of perspective does little to dampen the implicit grammar of good and bad when it comes to – killing innocent people for fun, ought not to be. We are then inclined, in this context, to pragmatically overlook the discrepancy in favor of the overlapping consensus regarding the conclusion. Freedom, then would be the absence of murder so defined. 

The Rule of Law as External Remedy Rather than the Goal

By way of thought experiment – We can imagine maximized freedom substantially realized in a virtuous community, in which the individuals have no need of accountability. This because, such a virtuous community, would have – necessarily internalized a virtue making standard, by which to live. Furthermore, they would require the actual capacity to act in accordance with such a standard (negotiating the balance of rights perfectly). History provides sufficient evidence that humanity falls short of both the capacity and sufficient agreement regarding the virtue making standard. The rule of law then is a necessary remedy (compromise) albeit insufficient to change the hearts and minds of people. The law does have a restorative function to be sure and something must be said regarding the principle of subsidiarity. Next time hopefully. Let me know what you think.