HUMAN FREEDOM
POLITICAL AND PERSONAL
FREEDOM:
NEGATIVE
EXTERNAL
POSITIVE
POLITICAL FREEDOM
NEGATIVE
INTERNAL
POSITIVE
= (something like)
being in a political, social, economic situation in which people, both individuals
and communities, have the effective capacity to positively determine their own
destiny in the directions in which they want to do so??
PERSONAL FREEDOM: freedom of the will, free
choice:
- two main theories
1) freedom is being able to do what one wants;
2) freedom is where you could have done otherwise.
THEORY ONE: FREEDOM AS BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT ONE WANTS
VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES:
1) ABSENCE OF EXTERNAL CONSTRAINT: being able to do what one wants.
- but
what if someone else is determining the wants??
So:
2) DETERMINATION OF ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ONE'S OWN TRUE WANTS: being
able to do what one wants.
= self-determination
type 1. Not yet inconsistent with
determinism.
A POSSIBILITY OF
DISTINGUISHING LEVELS OF WANTS:
SUPER
WANTS
versus
LOWER-LEVEL WANTS
but no radical self-determination of the Super-Wants,
the innermost self.
FUNDAMENTAL OPTION
THEORY
JUSTIFICATION and SANCTIFICATION
3) RADICAL CAPACITY TO DETERMINE WHAT I WANT: even to determine the innermost self - radical
self-creation
= self-determination
type 2: radical self-determination, in the sense of determination of self.
= a variety of indeterminism.
but perhaps this is too strong: so perhaps
4) LIMITED, CONTEXTUALIZED CAPACITY FOR
SELF-CREATION/ DETERMINING WHAT I WANT:
:creating oneself
slowly as a work of art via a more or less creative responding and operating
with the way we are given, with some capacity even to touch the deepest level.
Working in limited
horizons determined by language, culture, religious and ethical upbringing,
one's own past, relationships etc.
HOW IS THIS CONSISTENT
WITH DIVINE CREATIVITY?
- God sets us free: not divine versus human.
-
but who
decides??
Aquinas/Maritain solution; Whitehead/Hartshorne solution.
THEORY TWO: FREE = COULD HAVE DONE OTHERWISE
MEANING??
1) IF THINGS WERE DIFFERENT?
2) IF ONE WAS DIFFERENT?
3) IN SPITE OF THINGS BEING THE SAME AND EVEN WITH
ME AS THE SAME
Possibility 3) admits
of two further possibilities:
(a) it
was equal: 'freedom of indifference'
- but
this is rare; it ignores the influence of motives; if frequent it would make
human action entirely unpredictable and would make morality impossible.
so
(b) it was not equal, but
s/he still could have gone the other way.
"could have chosen the other way" meaning:
(i) if things were different?
(ii) had
s/he been different?
(iii) had
the other motive been the stronger??
These all have their problems.
QUESTION: do we always choose the stronger motive?
FURTHER QUESTION: WHY WAS ONE MOTIVE STRONGER THAN
THE OTHER?
ONLY ANSWER THAT STILL
PRESERVES FREEDOM: BECAUSE S/HE MADE IT STRONGER.
HOW? BY
TRANSFER OF ATTENTION (AQUINAS)
THE BASIS FOR TRANSFER OF ATTENTION? THE NATURAL DESIRE FOR THE VISION OF GOD.
THE PROBLEM OF
ADDICTIONS
(some)
ADDICTIONS AS IDOLS, THE IDOLS OF DEATH AND THE GOD OF LIFE
AND FREEDOM.
FREEDOM, eventually, = GETTING SET FREE FROM IDOLS.