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.
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.
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