A question of freedom.
Seen on a forum today:
Which is more free?
- that which ensures freedom or
- that which grants so much freedom that it permits denial of freedom
I know my perspective on this one, but I’m interested in hearing yours, before I weigh in myself.
Discuss.
#1 includes #2 inherently. It’s just that the denial of freedom implies a controlling of freedom if that denial is to be on another. Denial of your own freedom is still freedom.
I don’t necessarily agree — ensuring freedom means that you must, necessarily, restrict the freedom to make changes that reduce freedoms. You are, in effect, removing the option of doing the wrong thing, thereby rendering the right thing mandatory, and therefore stripping doing so of its moral value.
Basically, if doing the ‘right’ thing is the only option, then doing the right thing doesn’t mean anything.
Yeah, I sort of figured that’s what you meant. It’s kind of a catch 22, in a sense.
I didn’t read the importance of the word ‘ensures’ that way. That is therefor a legislated imposition of freedom. Still, to state that freedom is a must allows the freedom of denial of freedom so Simon’s statement comes into play.