Everyone wants freedom both to do what one wills and to do good. However, is it really possible to let these two happen at the same time? If life is surrounded by both evil and good things then will it be possible that man can only do good act, particularly if he does conformed to his freedom?
As answers to these questions, this paper will lay down arguments based on the views of some philosophers regarding freedom. And, at the end of this, we would be able to show that freedom is to do good alone.
According to Thomas Hobbes, in his work The Leviathan, man was born free, equal and independent. He defined liberty as the absence of any impediments. However, in the state of nature, where man is free, equal and independent, there is no assurance of life. Everyone claims their liberty that being an external impediment is possible to a person even though he just practices his liberty. Man goes against another man and state of war happens. Thus, as Hobbes agreed, we have to enter the social contract where there is an authority and law (which would surely be about doing good alone) that will assure our life in face of practicing liberty.
Likewise, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke, in their write ups The Social Contract and Second Treatise of the Government respectively, had the same opinion that man was born free, equal and independent. But, they said that having man as such gave insecurity or a number of inconveniences to our liberty so we had to enter the social compact wherein our liberty was guided by laws.
What Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke pointed out was we could not practice freedom to do what we just willed because it could be a threat to others liberty and, consequently, to ours. We need a law to let us use our freedom in doing good alone and so, nobody’s liberty will be impeded.
There are also cases where practicing of freedom is really wide, particularly in thinking. John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, mentioned we should practice our mental freedom. It implies that we can think whatever we want to think as long as it practices individuality. Nonetheless, when we think, most of the time, we act upon it. So, if we think badly on others and we act upon it, we probably impede other’s liberty; consequently, freedom is impeded. And, for our part, thinking bad will not actually practice individuality because, based on JS Mill, individuality is always towards human development. So, will bad things encourage development? Certainly, it does not, especially for the long term.
Additionally, JS Mill also proposed the Harm or Liberty Principle. This says that we can practice our liberty as long as we do not harm others or impede others liberty. This can be either direct or indirect. It is indirect if our practice of freedom offers bad influence to others (like when we smoke, others will also try it which is dangerous to their health). For JS mill, this was also a threat to one’s liberty.
Meanwhile, practicing our own freedom, even if without the presence of thinking other’s liberty, also needs guidance. In exercising our liberty, for instance, in eating means that we can eat everything. But, this world has both inedible and edible food so, for us to be able to eat the right one, we need something or somebody to tell us which can be eaten or not to preserve our freedom to live.
As a conclusion, we cannot be the mere judge of bad and good and so, of freedom for others and for ourselves. Many philosophers proposed laws (which are always about doing good) for us to protect our freedom. This means they agreed that freedom was not doing what one wills, but, necessarily, practicing good to preserve it, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment