Popular Posts

Sunday, March 2, 2014

The Challenge to Educate Children to Understand Human Freedom and his/her Society


Marjorie P. Garcia

 

Instructor, MMSU-College of Arts and Sciences

PhD Development Management Student

Divine Word College of Laoag
 
 
 
 
Abstract:       
           The need to educate children about the right concept of human freedom is very essential for them to better understand the meaning of freedom. Freedom is not absolute.
Human freedom is based on a person’s free will and rationality. It can also be equated or differentiated from what we call animal freedom. From this freedom, man has the capacity to control of their actions which is now his ability to direct his actions based on his wants which is intended for human improvement/development. Freedom is not exercised in the vacuum but in the social context.
 Keywords: human freedom, free wills, absolute freedom, animal freedom.
 
Introduction
In social and political ethics, we can speak of the following as elements of genuine progress: sound state of physical and mental health in society as a whole; sufficient degree of education and schooling of its members; opportunities of work for all; favorable conditions of religious, moral, and cultural life; the good of social justice; real freedom; and equality among men.  It is very evident that our country, the Philippines, falls very short for these qualifications, and, hence, cannot be considered as progressive in these lines.  This has been a very disturbing fact in many generations already so much so that its reality has been unconsciously—perhaps—accepted by the people that very few really pursue change.  The deterioration has been a common place situation that it has been considered the standard for normal Filipino everydayness.  This Filipino existential hopelessness is reflected in the proliferation of human labor as commodity to foreign services—“brain” and “brawn” drain.   
More disturbing, therefore, is the fact that people don’t bother to change at all.  The standard for Filipino living has been degraded down to the youth of the nation that we breed future citizens who don’t bother just the same.  This shows that our next generations has adulterated understandings of freedom and society and, therefore, we have less hopes for a better Filipino society in the future.  The education, therefore, of the young in proper understanding of freedom and society is very important.  Hence, this paper will present the right concept of freedom in relation to society.
 
Human Freedom
We have been using the term “person” most of the time specially to refer to ourselves or to other human beings which may be without understanding pretty well what it really means.  The term “person” is Etruscan which means “mask”.  The equivalent Greek translation for “person” is “hypostasis”.  But what is a “hypostasis”?  A “hypostasis” is a “supposit”; an intellective-volitive being—a being that is both free and intelligent.  The meaning of the term “person” therefore is a being that is both intelligent and free.  But what is intelligence (rationality) and free will (freedom)?
Free will Freedom has a wider concept than what it has been predicated to in human affairs may it be behavioral, societal, or political.  Freedom, in its strictest sense, is the ability to direct one’s actions.  The free agent—human person—can direct his/her actions to do this and to shun that in a manner that can even go beyond the dictates of normal biological processes.  We are not totally slaves to our physical attributes since we have the ability to suspend biological gratification if we want to.  If the body dictates that the bladder is full, the normal biological response is to urinate and relieve the body of a present tension.  The animal does so without thinking and without will.  They obey the dictates of their body as stated in the concept of “instinct”.  We do have the same system of instincts but we are capable of doing otherwise because of free will.  In the event that a student is in the middle of a very important lecture, the student can willfully suspend the release of tension which the wisdom of the body dictates as in the above example.  The body is governed by pain-pleasure morality where what is pleasurable is good while painful means bad.  Because of free will, human beings can choose what is mediately painful for an anticipated pleasure. 
 Rationality But human freedom cannot be without rationality since both are indispensable.  A being can’t be rational and not free for what good is there in a being who can learn and understand things if he/she can’t direct himself/herself to do these?  Nor is it possible for a being to be free and irrational since what is there to direct oneself into if one cannot even understand reality?  Such is the indispensability of both reason and will. Free will is based on rationality. In ancient and medieval philosophy, such human capacity has been relegated to the human soul for no biological aspect can be said to be the cause of the same.  Science, at present, is limited to a “behavioral” understanding of human reason and will, at least in so far as it can explain both empirically (i.e., in the process of evolution, the human species reached the period of development referred to as a quantum leap to the emergence of consciousness). 
Animal freedom  The young mind’s concept of freedom is animal base and very limited and wrong.  When asked if animals are free, the youth will most likely say yes for the reason that animals appear to be doing anything they want.  But do animals really know that what they are doing is their wants?  Is it even proper to use the term wants to animal behavior and activity?  First, they may not know what they are doing for they are acting out of their own nature or instinct (a certain degree of biological programming if I may say).  And second, what is natural can’t be said to be a want.  Only needs can be said to be biological; wants are biologically unnecessary.  If they are not even conscious of what they do since they act out of nature, and they cannot direct their actions which are merely biological dictations, then they are not rational and free.  This is, however, speaking of animals in human terms.  That means, any future research that can prove otherwise can negate the above argument.  The main point here, nevertheless, is that the idea that free will is doing anything one wants is wrong.  Why is that?  Because free will allows man to direct himself to many things that can be categorized only into two concepts: progression and regression.
Human development. Development is transcendence—a going beyond what one is just now.  Animals are at the mercy of their organism’s ability to adapt to the changing environment—subject to the slow evolutionary change.  The human species is comparatively young to other animals but for a very little time compared to animals, our species have changed the world—no longer a natural world but a cultural world; a world now defined in human terms.  Among the ranks of the animals, there is no such thing as development more than what biological evolution dictates.  Man’s development is a rebellion against what is given to the development of the given into the produced by human ingenuity (reason) and ability to direct actions (free will).  Responsible use of free will leads to progression while abuse of it—by directing oneself to things and activities that do not contribute to development—leads to regression.  Since the human species acquired development by proper use of free will, free will is not just doing anything one wants but the proper direction of actions that contributes to progression or development (Navarro, 2001).
           Human Society and Absolute Freedom
Granted that the evolutionary paradigm is the most probable cause to our origins, the concept of a human society is problematic in a sense that whence does it come?  If man is not naturally in a society, is not our concept of freedom above is also problematic in that it is very anthropological?  There are three social philosophies that I would like to discuss as an insight to what society is and how it must have started.
Thomas Hobbes.  Man leaves the state of nature and enters civil society into an agreement:
“I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner”  (Hobbes, 1839).
Hobbes stated that in civil society each man gives their right to govern themselves to a man (monarch) or to an assembly of men (democracy).  Further, the monarch has an absolute power for power is indivisible.  The monarch/assembly of men no longer acts in behalf of the citizens who yielded their rights but embodies the will of all citizens.  Acting in one’s own behalf on the part of the monarch is against the virtue of civil society; resisting authority on the part of the governed is tantamount to resisting one’s will or reverting to the state of nature which is anarchy.
Jean Jacques Rousseau.  Rousseau did not inquire into the change of man from state of nature to members of civil society.  His inquiry starts from his statement: Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains”(Curtis, 1981).
In the state of nature man was happy for he possesses absolute independence.  Rousseau called this a natural sentiment (amour de soi) where each is inclined to watch over his own preservation and guided by reason develops humanity and virtue.  So in the beginning man was good rejecting original sin.  The beginning of sin and evil is in early social contacts when men desire to be better than others and develop instead an artificial sentiment (amour propre).  Here comes the conflict as population grew in number.  How can man reconcile his independence with the inevitable fact that they have to live together?  The solution is a form of association that protects the goods of each person and while uniting himself with all, he may still obey himself alone  (Smith, 1994.)
In some point in the past, a living contract was made between individuals as a solution to their dilemma—the Social contract.  Every political assembly starts with this living contract.  The people lose individual liberty and unlimited right to everything but what they gain is civil liberty and property right to what they possess. 
“Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of a whole.”  Whoever refuses to obey the general will must be compelled to do so by the whole body—he will be forced to be free!(Curtis, 1981).
The general will is everybody’s will.  It is the recognition of the common good which they all seek to achieve.  Laws therefore are products of the general will.  Hence, a person who disobeys must be forced to be free.  However, the general will is different from will of all in the sense that it speaks of factions and different assemblies of men.  In a society, there must never be factions for it to have the general will  (Rousseau, 1947).
Since co-existence with other persons is inevitable and it is that which negates the exercise of individual liberty, the next best thing for us is civil liberty.  We may not have unlimited rights to everything in this sense but we acquired property rights to what we possess.  We can therefore speak of absolute freedom in two ways after the above discussion.  The first sense is no accountability or responsibility to anybody but to oneself which is the state of nature.  This state of nature is negated by the indispensability of co-existence.  In the context of human co-existence, we come up with a new sense of freedom—civil liberty.  But can we still speak of absolute freedom in this sense?  Rousseau offers that the only solution is while uniting ourselves to all we still obey ourselves alone as it is in the social contract.  Hence, we still have absolute independence in society only that it has a different sense compared to the state of nature. 
Justice as Fairness.John Rawls maintains that when we think of the social contract, we are trying to discern…  “… the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association” (Rawls, 1971).
These principles are those which will promote “Justice as Fairness”.  However, people don’t agree on what fairness means since we all have individual differences as regards present economic status, physical talents, abilities, and prowess, level of education, and the like.  Pause for some moments and think is our present legislators really write laws for the benefit of all… What do you think?
Rawls, therefore, suggests that we can only think of these principles if and only when we do so in a “hypothetical situation of equal liberty”.  The point is, in establishing principles for justice as fairness, our present status comes in the way and makes us decide on justice favorable only or insofar as our present status is concerned, making it therefore a relative view on fairness.  Rawls’ hypothetical situation of equal liberty means that in establishing principles of justice as fairness, we must do so as if we are of the same and equal specific situation.  This is what he called the Veil of Ignorance.  There is fairness where everyone is at the same position when the deliberations begin.  This is the Original Position where one can think of one’s self-interest without conflict.  In the original position, one’s desire to advance oneself will be tantamount to advancing others since everyone is in the same position.
This brings us to the connection between the theory of justice and rational choice.  While rational people will normally think of their self-interests, they will also accept the limits and constraints of existence and work for a middle ground in what he calls the reflective equilibrium.
Priority Points
  • Equal liberty is paramount for human dignity and human respect and should be sacrificed only when life itself is at stake.
  • The Difference Principle—since liberty will inevitably breed inequalities, these must ensure fairness in a way that unequal opportunity will enhance opportunity; one’s advantage will uplift the disadvantaged.  Therefore:
They must be to everyone’s advantage.
They must be attached to positions open to all.
  • On the Savings Principle, while it is important to save for future human generations, it should not take precedence over fair treatment for those who are living right now.
  • If the inequality is too great, the state should interfere to lessen the inequality by enforcing laws that will lessen the burden of the underprivileged.
“All social primary goods—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these good is to the advantage of the least favored” (Rawls, 1971).
           Conclusion
It is natural for a child to conceive freedom as in the state of nature.  But as one grows, one experiences the human society where, initially from the home, a child gets to learn painful lessons of civil liberty reinforced in another human institution we call the School.  The education of the young to be responsible members of human society therefore is one of the paramount responsibilities of the school. 
There is a big need to educate the young to a better understanding of freedom and society to make them more sensitive to the obvious misrule of our present Filipino society.  We have been silent for a long time for reasons that are too many to collate and understand empirically.  We need a new breed of voters who can decide well for themselves and for the future of the nation.  For it is not in the form of society where our development rests but in the kind of people.  It is in this sense that I may be said to agree with Adolf Hitler when he wrote:
"No matter how much the soil, for instance, is able to influence the people, the result will always be a different one, according to the races under consideration. The scanty fertility of a living space may instigate one race towards the highest achievements, while with another race this may only become the cause for the most dire poverty and ultimate malnutrition with all its consequences." (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1939).
 
References:
Curtis, Michael, The Great Political Theories, Vol 1: The New expanded Edition.Avon Books, New York, 1981.
_____________, The Great Political Theories, Vol 2: The New expanded Edition.Avon Books, New York, 1981.
Hitler, Adolf.  Mein Kampf.  New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1939.
Hobbes, Thomas, The Leviathan, Vol. 3.  Sir William Molesworth, ed.  London: John Bohn, 1839.
Navarro, Rosita L., Ph.D., Lucido, Jose R., M.A., An Introduction to the Study of Social Philosophy.  Katha Publishing Co., Inc., 2001.
Rawls, John.  A Theory of Justice.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.The Social Contract, Charles Frankel, trans.  New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1947.
 
Smith, Elizabeth, Blocker, H. Gene.  Applied Social and Political Philosophy.  Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1994.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Building a fair Hiring process: Overcoming political challenges

  BLESSIE JANE PAZ B. ANTONIO JANICE D. RASAY Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, Philippines Abstract The hiring process and pr...