Freedom 1
"The idea of absolute freedom is fiction. It's based on the idea of an independent self. But, in fact, there's no such thing. There's no self without other people. There's no self without sunlight and water, and bees to pollinate the food we eat... so the idea of behavingin a way that dosen't acknowledge those reciprocal relationships is not really freedom, it's indulgence." These words may offend those who believe the freedom of the self and may even be considered contradictary to the principles of modern society. Nevertheless they ring true. In todays increasingly open and pluralistic society, freedom is one of our most exalted virtues. But what does it mean really? Granted, society and its citizens should never be controlled, forced to be victims of a totalitarian state or repressive regime. We have a multitude of rights to protect ranging from the right to speak freely about whatever concerns us to the right to chose what brand of toilet paper to buy at the supermarket. However, as a wise man once said, with every freedom comes responsibility. With the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to speak in a responsible, polite and reasonable manner. With the freedom from governmental supervision comes the responsibility to take care of onself without relying on welfare. With the right to chose comes the responsibility to bear the full consequences of our choices. Does the law not exist to correct those who would abuse their freedoms in disregard of their responsibilities. Our freedoms exist only because it is understood that we will exercise them with prudence and responsibility. That, I believe, may not be absolute freedom in its purest and most idealistic sense, but it is far better than indulgence.What about our status quo then? What manner of freedom do Singaporeans have? As our law and morality becomes increasingly westernized, what do our freedoms amount to? Abortion and divorce rates have soared while alcoholism and drunk driving are on the upward train. Crime among our nation's youth is steadily rising while our societal harmonies are tested continuously. Our country has begun letting in things that would have been undreamt of just 10 years ago. I don't mean to be a conservative "holier-than-thou" nay-sayer but facts are facts. Say what you will of impressive employment, GDP and economic growth, while our economy and infastructure shines and impresses, it is no measure of our success as a society.
Let me do a case in point. Society has made abortion legal in the name of freedom. Nowadays, any teenager beyond the consenting age can go to any appropriate medical clinic and get an abortion, no questions asked. In private discussions, junior colleges and polytechnics compete for the dubious honour of 'institution with the highest rate of pregnancies and abortions'. In the name of freedom we have allowed foolhardy teenagers like myself to act in a reckless and irresponsible manner and get away with it without fear of consequence. Parental consent and guidance thrown out the window, just like that. In our eagerness to conform to western social values and ideals, we as a society have abandoned our own principles and have allowed such gross dismissals of responsibility to take place. That is not freedom, it is foolishness.
More on this another time, if you have any reasonable replies or (as is more likely) rude insults, feel free to leave them as comments or use the tagboard.
(The words used in the opening of this post were found on www.coolquotescollection.com and were said by Peter Coyote)
J.T.Z
So said Aerasio at 07:33
6 Comments:
On theoretical issues of "Freedom" it may be worthwhile to read Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty" (ask dad if he can get you a copy maybe?), but freedom wrt state and society are more interestingly dealt with in Rousseau & Mill (start with The Social Contract and On Liberty, and feel free to disagree - and then I can provide further reading if you're still interested.) On growth, GDP and happiness, a certain Prof Layard writes quite influentially - but maybe reading through Ecclesiastes might be more suitable.
haha, i'd read them all if i was free and bored enough :) No offense, but i find it very hard to get through comprehensive idealogical books like that. Then again, maybe its because i haven't read very many :P
But is not a female's right to manage her own body the most ultimate freedom? One bears in mind that if abstinence was pursued that person would not have come into being in the first place. Countless gametes get thrown away every day, through natural cycles. Surely then, on both a religious and moral perspective, a person must develop sentience to become a person, or at least any chance of viability, ie. to be chosen.
IMO, kudos for what I think was being said in the then upcoming elections, but one must not obfuscate freedom. Since you read Orwell's 1984 (I suggest his "Homage to Catalonia" if you haven't already) the appendix shows how the government showed how ridiculous "equality" was, because I am not equal to you, I do not share the same height, or the same weight, or the same genetic makeup. To define "freedom" in the manner you describe is making a strawman - such as defining "equality" as being clones, even.
I believe this was a defense of the laws that have been recently criticised for undermining freedom of speech, no?
But who is to define responsibility? Which (human) has the authority to say, "that's irresponsible!" or "that's incendiary!" and be justified in suppressing speech for it?
Libertarianism declares that each individual should have the freedom to make his or her own choices as long as it does not affect others. Classical economics (ie. Adam Smith) operate on the idea that individual freedoms lead to a common good. But of course, as one delves deeper (Nash economics et al) one finds there are plenty of externalities.
Of course you have the right which brand of toilet paper to buy. But what if that money goes on to support some unethical actions? Or if that toilet paper (an extreme example) contained items which harmed the environment? (A more suitable example would be industry, but bear with me.) These hurt other individuals, who had no say in the transaction between two parties that affected more than those parties (externalities).
Thus the entire issue of communalism and communitarianism comes in.
Anyhow, good post, but responsibility can be resolved through other means (social pressures), but certain freedoms must be guaranteed by law, that are universal, self-evident, and cannot be infringed.
Heh, in actual fact that didn't have anything to do with the upcoming elections. Its more of a defense for christianity's strict moral standards than for Singapore's laws and I thoroughly admit that wiser minds than mine prevail on matters such as this.
However, I still would like to disagree with what you say. I would say that it is definitely the right of a female to manage her own body in the way that she chooses. But that these rights are not fully granted by the law until such a time as the law declares that she is fit to do so without external supervision and guidance. Hence the reason for things like the age of consent and age limits on alcohol and driving.
Next, in the context of my post, I never said that abstinence was something that everyone should practice for their whole life though I understand why what I said might have been interpreted that way. I merely meant that pregnancy and abortion in the context of women in polytechnics and JCs is something I feel is morally repugnant. That these things can happen completely without the knowledge of the guardians and parents of the said females is something I feel should be corrected. As for the issue of gametes, that is something I'm gonna address in a later post on abortion(if I can find the time). Hopefully you'll stick around to read it.
On the other issue of my definition of freedom, I'm really sorry but I don't quite understand what you're saying :P. I'm not quite sure what cloning and equality has to do with what I said and am even more lost on why my argument was interpreted as setting up a strawman.
Also, how can social pressures resolve anything if the breach of responsibility goes by unnoticed because the law allows it?
Ideas such as libertarianism deny such responsibilities because they act on the assumptions that every person is a mature and rational individual who will make their own logical decisions and thus should be free to do whatever they want to as long as they don't harm anyone else. The problem here is (and i'm gonna stick my neck out to say it) that people aren't rational individuals. Also, to suggest that people can make choices without affecting others is sheer idealism. Every choice we make, everything we do affects something else and by extension someone else. As you rightly pointed out, even the trivial matter of choosing toilet paper affects others.
Next, while I admire the theories of Messr's Smith and Nash. I am highly skeptical of applications of their theories into the area of social responsibility. Just because their theories produce great economies dosen't mean they produce great societies. I say once again that the success of society is not measured by economic efficiency or might.
Lastly, I never said anything about freedom of speech and I in fact regard it as one of the most fundamental rights and principles of society. My attack was not against the ideal of freedom but rather modern society's interpetation of it.
Arguments aside, I didn't really expect such a thoughtful reply to what I wrote. Thanks for making me feel like I'm being taken seriously :) Do reply and continue the discussion, I'm really interested to hear what you have to say.
Well, here is my belated response.
In all practical view, it is generally ideal for the student to tell their parents, but this is similar to for example, selling condoms to teenagers. While this seems to encourage activity, the consequences of not reaching out would be quite worse, namely the effects of unprotected sex and whatnot.
The situation where a student chooses to go for the operation without telling their parents is not an ideal situation but is better than if the service had to operate based on parental consent, because some parents do make pretty poor choices. Often, if parents had to be told, their children will keep silent (and despair) till its too late. Allowing such an option doesn't mean that everyone, or even the majority, who gets pregnant while a teenager will choose not to tell their parents.
Often, the people who choose not to tell their parents are often rather alienated from their parents in the first place,
The state shouldn't be the one regulating morals, society as a whole should. Morals should be something encouraged, or pressured, not something enforced, because of the entire nature of the benefit of the doubt. The state has monopoly on certain powers of enforcement, and that status is absolute. However, certain moral situations aren't absolute. Hence often the state should not intervene, although society (peers, friends, parents) should because the enforcement is more of a spectrum, than something absolute (ie. either it happens or it doesn't).
Ideally, in my opinion, the state government should be deprecated as much as possible and replaced by social mechanisms. This idea forms the basis of communitarianism, libertarian socialism, etc. (a government for the people, of the people, by the people). This is ideal, however, thus working towards it is satisfactory.
When the state intervenes in certain situations, often it can only make black and white solutions, when the case isn't black and white. However, in contrast an effective solution (of discouragement) can often be implemented by society, without the injustice. Mechanisms of society include boycotts (an exercise of a right to pressure an entity) shunning/ostracism, peer pressure (which can have positive effects) among other things. That way if someone's peers are still mistaken, the said individual can still go ahead, because there is always a chance that the perception doesn't apply. Black and white cases (murder) for example, is usually where the state steps in.
To me, only God can enforce moral consequences. The role of other humans is to encourage fellow Christians to stay in the light (and the role of parents have signficantly more powers to guide their children of course), but never a legal punishment for a moral sin ("let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"). On the other hand, moral pressure, such as pressure from friends not do something, or in the case of parents the traditional grounding, etc. is acceptable. Legal wrongs - theft, violence, rape, urder - are to be legally punished, of course.
So in the case of society, I usually oppose traditional economics in this case (as they often reject communitarian thought) - I adhere to what you may have heard of as libertarian socialism, which is actually rather different from mainstream libertarianism. In this sense, because every transaction affects everybody, one has the right to make a certain decision, in this case, moral decisions, but faces the possibility of moral backlash (with socioeconomic consequences) if it is a particularly bad one.
I wrote this rather in a disorganised manner, so feel free to ask me to clarify anything that seems non sequitir.
As for my comments on straw man, I misinterpreted your post, because I thought you were equating some freedom has to be sacrificed for moral responsibility, but I agree with you about modern perception.
Post a Comment
<< Home