Contrary to Conventional Wisdom, "Freedom" is a Problematic Word
Reading the word "freedom" in two different places last evening it struck me how dangerous the word really is. People with their own agendas use it to stomp out others with whom they disagree. It has implications of life and death.
I'm reading a long book about the decision to invade Iraq. I've always wondered how such a colossal mistake could have been made when those making the decision had the best information available to anyone. You may recall there were several justifications for the decision, the last one being "weapons of mass destruction." Eventually the President admitted they did not to exist. Previous to that, however, was W. Bush's irrational belief that if people everywhere had "freedom" they would be happier. The author points out that Bush's privileged life did not include knowing people across the globe who were starving and had no interest or knowledge about the abstract idea of "freedom." They are more interest in something to eat that the right to vote or than freedom of speech.
Then, I came across as organization that advocates for "religious freedom." This group has a similar abstract notion that if everyone everywhere could carry out their religious views everyone would be better off. Reality is different. "Freedom" is in many ways a zero sum game. Increase the "freedom" of one group and the freedom of another group is reduced by an equal or greater amount.
Freedom of a pharmacist to deny serving a customer at the window is an example. If the person is of the wrong race that person has less freedom. If the person wants medicine for the wrong purpose, for an abortion, that person has less freedom. If there is no other pharmacist in the store both customers have to leave without what they needed. If the store is rural, or in a city but the customers do not have cars or money to reach another drug store, their reduction in "freedom" is that much greater. If either of these customers dies is it still a net increase in society's "freedom" that the pharmacist was allowed to turn the customers away? Or, is it a net decrease?
It is so tempting to use the word "freedom" for every cause that comes along. The word, however, often means more freedom for one person and less for someone else.
Interesting post. Interesting in that it assumes an atomistic, reductionistic concept of "freedom". Which is to say that it expresses a view envisioning a human society composed of individual "atoms" each seeking whatever one thinks of as his/her own good while, at the same time, either bumping into or trying to dodge other "atoms" who are doing the same thing (i.e. going about pursuing whatever they take to be good or right in their own eyes/ self-interest). From which it follows that there is no universally accepted norm by which we can discern whether or not one "atoms" view of freedom is legitimate/rightly ordered or not. It is a kind of free for all. And when "atoms" collide (as they often do) the resulting conflict can be settled only by resort to state power and/or by social consensus (regrettably mostly by the former). This means, among another other things, court and legislative dockets filled with appeals to resolve conflicting freedom claims.
ReplyDeleteUnknown "From which it follows there is no universally accepted norm by which we can discern.." (what is the right or wrong freedom).
DeleteYes, that is the problem you bring up often. There is a way it has always been solved. Nixon said our country needed to crack down on student protests. So law enforcement did and killed at Kent State. Anti abortion protesters used what they thought was their "right" to physically block patients from abortion clinics. Eventually, these conflicts were set aside and we moved on--but remained a zero sum game.
An exception would be prosperity and health. When the standard of living rises for everyone everyone has more choices, i.e., freedom, than they had before.
ah yes, it's a dog eat dog world. and only the state (as in Hobbes) can keep the dogs from eating one another. nice philosophy, that. and, as you say, we are more "free" when we have a wider choice of consumer goods and when we are feeling well. maybe there is an element of truth in that assertion. but consider this: would I be more free if there were no traffic rules? I could speed, I could run people down. I could go where I pleased, right side. left side, whatever. or am I more "free" when there are traffic lanes, stop and go lights, speed limits and other "objective" rules controlling traffic behavior?
ReplyDeleteJon,
ReplyDeleteWhat I read lately speaks more of “religious liberty” than “religious freedom”. From the link in your post, the Religious Freedom Institute mission statement opens by stating their commitment to religious liberty. They appear to equate “freedom” and “liberty”. To me it seems when Christians talk about religious freedom the reference is to their right to worship. When they are fuming and fussing about something or someone they dislike, find distasteful, or for god’s sake sinful religious liberty comes into play. Do you draw a distinction between the two terms?
In reference to the Christian pharmacist or cake baker cock-ups I think the likes of Christianity and other religions have become, if they not always were, business-based faiths and the latter day concept of faith-based businesses is a predictable consequence. “There’s no greater gift to the enemies of religious liberty than Christians who demand their rights and spit on their duties of charity.”, Rod Dreher, author of “The Benedict Option”.
Ardy--Good post. I was a little careless about use of the words liberty and freedom. Sometimes they seem to be used interchangeably and sometimes not.
Deleteseems to me that to distinguish liberty and freedom entails a distinction w/o a difference. the real difference is freedom to worship vs. freedom of religion. as to charity, I don't think that "charity" as you use the term means that Christians (or anyone else) must give up their deeply held principles because they are obliged to love their enemies. it would be another matter if a Christian wished someone dead or in hell or suffering from the pox, whatever. of course, being human we all do wish such things. but to do so is clearly uncharitable.
ReplyDelete