What is Freedom?

     Freedom is a complicated subject, but also the basis for most schools of thought. Religion requires the ability to choose between right and wrong in order to function, but philosophy also assumes that there is an intrinsic nature of free will in order to make decisions (otherwise ends or means wouldn't matter, because what we are going to do is what we are going to do), but very rarely is the nature of freedom analyzed beyond either a lack of servitude or the ability to make decisions. However, what is the nature of being free beyond the physical or philosophical? There are more levels to freedom than simply making our own choices.

     I propose that freedom is wanting to do what you should do. I believe that there is one correct (or various correct, depending on the situation) way to act, at least concerning ethics. Freedom means a lack of coercion that would attempt to prevent you choosing to do that action. Essentially, I could allowed to make only one choice a day, but if I could make the right choice at that branch, without coercion, I would be free. If I was given a thousand opportunities, but  made a wrong one because I was lured into it, I would not be free. However, making a wrong decision of my own accord is an act of freedom (though in that context I would rather be a slave, unable to choose.) While this is a depressing view of freedom, the premise extends beyond narrow philosophical allusions. Freedom in my view extends beyond that, a complete freedom- physical, mental, and philosophical. This means three things.


     First, there can be no tangible force preventing me from making the right decision. If I was restrained, and couldn't help someone who was injured, I would not be free to make that choice and therefore would not be free. Furthermore, there could be no threat of violence, reprimand, or punishment that would deter me from making the right choice- though hopefully the impetus for the proper course of action would outweigh the negative stimuli. Even if I made the decision and was punished for it, I would not be free, because making the right decision had negative consequences, designed to deter me from doing so again, or in more severe cases deal damage to me so that I would be less able to act in the future. You will notice that I do not care if I am forced to do what is right, such as following laws, because I am not forced to go against my ideals. Note that my nature is to do what is wrong, but if I am prevented from being able to choose what is not right, I am not impaired, I am aided. Again, depressing, but not once you think about the consequences of wrong actions.

     Second, there can be no mental persuasion that is holding me in sway. These are more varied, from bribes and incentives to addiction, trauma, stress, and even mental conditioning (i.e. punishment for doing the action in the past). If I act out of a neurological urge resulting from addiction, I am not free (presuming the action is wrong), or if I do wrong because of a personal incentive or bribe I am not free to choose because the choice, normally a split decision, is weighted in the favor of what is wrong. While these *DO NOT* justify doing harm, they are limitations of freedom, but even a prisoner is held accountable for his actions, and growing up in a family of thieves does not justify theft, but does instil an idea that theft is acceptable. However, being conditioned by punishment to deter from what is wrong is still freedom, because it prompts the correct response. Certainly being punished for stealing is not wrong, and the resulting deterrence is also wrong. In order to invalidate at least this portion of the argument, it would be necessary to state that the threat of prison or other punitive measures is wrong.

     Third, there can be no philosophical strings attached- meaning that there can be no "set up" of the situation. There can be no condition that makes the situation wrong. Each action must be considered entirely independent of the context- otherwise, an individual begins to execute justice. It would be wrong to deny help to a wounded murderer, even though they have guilt that could condemn them to death. Furthermore, there cannot be an unreasonable expectation of knowledge. If helping the wounded murderer would result in the murderer overpowering the doctor and then escaping to kill again, but the doctor has no way to know that the wounded individual is a murderer, the doctor cannot be held accountable. However, helping a murderer and then allowing him to escape knowing that he is a criminal is wrong, since this thwarts justice. However, the justice must be executed by the state. This is not to say that individuals cannot help the state, the doctor would be obligated to restrain or detain the murderer, but could not arrest and execute the man. Similarly, anyone doing something that is harmful should be restrained- a rioter should be restrained by anyone capable of doing so, but should not be arrested and thrown in prison by a bystander, because this bypasses justice. In the absence of government, vigilantism is justified as the only method of justice, but while government exists, it has a monopoly over punitive force unless otherwise granted (i.e. parents disciplining their children). To pertain more to freedom, if I am forced to do wrong because I helped someone in need, and that individual used my aid to harm others, but I had no knowledge of his evil intent, then I am not culpable of that situation. Furthermore, if I do wrong to a someone because they have done something to harm me, I am still doing wrong, because I did something to take justice into my own hands, which is inherently wrong. However, if I shot and killed someone because they were about to shoot me or someone else, I am not culpable, because the justice of government means nothing if the harm could have been prevented. However, if I shot and killed someone when I could have merely subdued him without any harm coming of it, I have taken justice into my own hands, and have done wrong. However, the philosophical situation cannot dictate the action's goodness- if the suspect I subdued later killed someone, I am not guilty because I chose not to kill him. The situations stand independently because of the freedom of choice- the past is done and gone, and I as an individual should not hold others accountable unless they have done a crime against me or society and have not been punished, and I cannot act to prevent something in the distant future, because individuals have the right to choose and the future is not written entirely by the present (just because someone stole from me doesn't mean I can assume they will steal again, and though it does not mean I should ignore their past actions, I cannot assume they will always steal.)

     To summarize, freedom means your decisions are not influenced by another and not manipulated by outside forces, but can be influenced by protections that only prevent you from doing what is wrong. The reason for this is that when you do what is wrong, there are consequences. A safeguard that keeps me from stealing limits my options, but not my freedom, but a barrier to helping others in need limits my freedom.

What is right and wrong is a much lengthier discussion.