Freedom, the queernes of.

Hullo, in this post we're going to investigate the nature of freedom. Intriguing concept that, of course, ties in with politics. It's a favoured word of the USA, liberals and neoconservatives - but also with the left. I think, however, we're talking about slightly different things when we talk about freedom. I also think that there is something metaphysical over the way the word is used, and something very odd, too.

Anyway, this is a fairly linguistic analysis as usual. Let's see where it takes us. I'd like to leave a disclaimer first of all, though - I'm not "out" to remove freedom or something, I just want to clarify what it is we're talking about.

Freedom seems to be the absence of something. The absence of a power that forces you, in general. So far I think we're doing alright. It seems to be what everyone is talking about. But so often we can believe that we're talking about some Platonic Form when we use words like "hot" or "freedom" or "impressive".

However, isn't it invoked in other ways, too? Bring to mind the speeches by various American officials. "We must defend our freedom." "They hate our freedom." What freedom is that? And is freedom from a government really so free?

Freedom more philosophically ties in with the ancient determinism vs. free will argument. Are we free to act in different ways in different situations? My answer is "yes, sort of."

I think people who think that, say, Marxists deny people freedom in the grand scheme of things or that some other thing denies personal freedom (be it Freudian psychology or historical materialism) are out on very slippery ice. There are three main issues that I have with the conception of freedom as (what I'd like to call) a 'total' ontological category. That's to say, there is a freedom that is -completely- free. This seems to be what people talk about in general and what the word has impressed into our minds.

But freedom is just an absence of a forcing power in different levels, it's not an agents complete and total -given- power over himself.

Now, to the arguments.

First of all, attributes. With attributes I mean things like "intelligent", "short-tempered", "strong", "fast" or "bipolar". They can be many kinds, but they all have in common that we put them in the kind of sentences like "he is... (X)". "Why did Peter act that way at the party last night?" "You know Peter, he's so jealous." "Can he really run that distance?" "Sure, he's very fast." These attributes can be decreased, increased, lost or whatever else. But that is just another argument for their existance. These attributes are necessary to have a specific kind of dimension at all - an amoeba has no traits connected to thinking because it can't think. But with these traits, wherever it is they come from (and whether they be Forms, Tropes or whatever else), you find something that exists outside of it, something that somehow determines your behaviour. Of course, I don't think you can have a related behaviour without these traits of whatever category, but they do also create a kind of upper limit. That's the first constraint on 'freedom' (freedom as the metaphysical conception).

Second of all, epistemology. This is somewhat connected to attributes, but not quite. Basically, how can we know enough things to be completely free? We can be mistaken (which we often are), we can be wrong, we can be deceived, we can be in error, we can be ignorant. There is a cultural strain (which is widely regarded these days, but at times assaulted by various right-wingers - probably because they understand that it hampers the metaphysical freedom), there is your upbringing (another constraint attacked by some right-wing people) and so much else. But even if you don't accept culture and upbringing (in which case I think you and science should have a good, long talk) then you'll still face the greatest obstacle of all - you have no idea what your actions will lead to. You probably don't even have an idea what the next hour will be like. Time sweeps away the kind of certainty we need to be omnipotently free. Because that is what we need, we must basically be God to be entirely free. Otherwise the fog of war occludes the choices we have.

Lastly, the problem of relations. As social animals, humans live in groups and need other human beings. At this scale we all live in networks that function on a global scale all the while down to our most intimate relations. We need this, and there is nothing wrong in it. Our learning, our well being and our morality depend upon relations to others. But all of us know what a pain it can be, what a strain these relations can put on us. Unknown networks (called economics, culture, even racism and sexism) pull us in and toss us about. Our family makes demands. Our friends push us. This is the way of things. The ride, as it is, is bumpy. How can anyone deny that these relations exist and that they make us do things?
The good thing (as good as it is, don't understand me as a government apologist) of formal, bureaucratic structures is that they're visible (alright, mostly visible, but you can go look up whatever it is that is hidden by consulting the right books and so on). They have formal rules. This is important. Social relations don't. They have psychological rules, cultural rules and so on, but they are much more undefined than your general bureaucratic structure. You might understand what I am getting to. They also make demands on you. In some cases, informal structures take over more than formal ones when these subside. In the breakdown of a state people rely on their families, they lean on tradition and so on.

How are you going to have a metaphysical freedom in the wake of these social relations?

There we have it, then. I am not sure how my criticism can be overcome without some important retreats. But what must be understood is this. I am not looking to attack 'ontological' freedom, specifically. That's to say, that Sartrean freedom. But under this light, I think it's going to turn very queer into saying that you have complete, ontological freedom. Maybe it's possible, but I think it's just going to get weird and demand philosophical technicalities of the highest order.

Second of all, I am merely restating freedom. That's to say, the absence of a forcing power. This is even bringing freedom into other arenas - it attacks your very self. Breaking away from your own preconceptions is a kind of freedom. Breaking away from others preconceptions is a kind of freedom. Breaking away from a government or breaking away from an economical system that forces you into some actions (you guys must have seen that one coming :P) is a kind of freedom. But freedom, really, has no ontological status.

Now and Then.

Fall of the Roman Empire. Thanks to a slave class of about 80%, an opulent and corrupt elite and an army that was stretched thinner and thinner and weaker and weaker because of a slave class - Rome falls. The people of the ancient world must have thought the world was destroyed. Imagine the mass rapes, the murder, the few rich people who tried to get away to East Rome. Barbarians poured in over the borders, soldiers left their posts and everywhere the Empire was splintered and fell apart. Cities were ruined, monastaries pillaged and ancient monuments toppled.

The Crusades. Driven by a will for riches and new land knights from Europe pour into a relatively enlightened Middle East. They kill, torment, torture and plague the land for over a century. They g o back on their promises, they pillage and destroy Constantinople. If your skin is dark, that might be enough of a reason for you to be killed without a trial.

The first World War. The working class of Europe and America is sent into the trenches. Social Democratic international solidarity disappear in a storm of patriotism for whatever nation. From the factories, millions are sent into battle to be cut down en masse. The trenches are rife with disease, rats and water. The generals, in the meantime, stay behind the front in whatever chateau is far enough from enemy artillery to have practical supés every night.

Now a global capital systematically murders and imprisons dissidents against the greed that is the very essentials of capitalism. Haiti. Iraq. Afghanistan. Palestine. Sweden. The United States. Condolezza Rice, George W. Bush and Cheney were all in the oil industry. The weapons industry makes record sails. Arabs are spat upon for fighting back. The death of a few Americans or other Westerners is blown up hugely. For decades the Israeli army has shot Palestinian children with American-made weapons, loaded with Swedish bullets. Bombs have been felled over sovereign states. We all know there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction. No interest in democracy. The US isn't agreeing to international courts. Their operatives are murdering and setting up regime changes in Venezuela and Iran and tries to undermine those nations. Exxon was revealed as the liars and cheats they are. Skania in Sweden as well. Britain follows along - shouting out "we want some too, we want some too!" Tony Blair and Bush couldn't be more of a gang of companions than they are. Capitalists flow into China where unions are forbidden, children work in factories and any attempt to organize is brutally suppressed. The Trotskyists called it "state capitalism".

It makes me sick. When people look back in 200 years - they are going to look at us with the same kind of wonder at our idiocy as we do upon those mentioned massacres. Some philosophers believe that the "now" has a privilieged ontological position. But I don't believe that. In essence, all the suffering of history comes together. There's no reason to view the past tragedies as less of tragedies just because we happen to be in the "now".

Morality, Moralism and Moralisers.

Right, so when I was reading James Rachels book "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" it struck me that perhaps the word "morality" has a very strange connotation in todays culture. Who is it that uses the word "morality", really? To me, it seems to be Christians and other religious fellows - it absolutely smacks of religiosity. It might bring to mind ideas of sexual abstinance, of abortion, contraceptives and so on and so forth. Now, as a philosophy student those things (except abortion which is handled frequently) are really far away from my way of thinking. Morality remains very important to me as an object to study and as trying to figure out what I should be doing.

Still, I think all of us think about morality and virtue. We think about what people do, we make value judgements and so on. It's inevitable as the herd animals that we are. Sometimes we use it to simply justify some feeling that we have that is culturally loaded or to praise or cast blame on someone we feel something particular for.

This is another post that has to do with politics and religion, but it also has to do with morality. But I'd like to say two things. First of all, morality and religion are not as compatible as you think and they're perhaps even contrary to one another. Second of all, morality has absolutely nothing to do with half of the things that moralisers talk about. I am suggesting, of course, gay marriage, sex before marriage and many other similar sex-related issues. Stem-cell and abortion remains fairly important, but they're peripheral in the moral debate I feel. Why? Well, because most of this has to do with religion, really, they're trying to give a reason for why you should condemn such practices that are typically related to what the Bible says or what God likes or dislikes. That's not giving reasons, really, that's something else. I'm not going to get into a deep discussion on the matter but morality is really formulated by giving reasons and by calling on principles.

Now, to attack perhaps the deepest moralising (contrasted to moral) principle. God allows us to have objective morality. Why? Because God will punish the wicked and praise the good. So you should act right, always. Only a religious person can have objective morality.
Wrong!

Suppose that I am a parent, and that my young child steals cookies from the cookie jar. I tell them to stop, and I tell them that it is "wrong" to do so. Why, they inevitably ask, "because daddy told you so." I believe that religion that tries to give you objective right or wrong will ultimately fail if we're relying on a judge. Immanuel Kant, the Prussian philosopher of the 18th century said that duty should be done for duty's sake. If you act for any other reason than the fact that you wish to be moral then you're not really moral. God, thus, will make it impossible to actually be moral - or at the very least you're going to have to -forget- that God is looking over your shoulder. Otherwise, how are you going to be good? You're just doing it because you're going to get punished.

So what are we talking about when we're talking about morality, then? We're talking about you and me, we're talking about justice, we're talking about what we should do tomorrow. We're talking about standing up, sitting down and speaking out. We're talking about trying to become better people in one way or the other. Growing, overcoming obstacles and actually -acting-. Morality is philosophy in action.

As I said, most of us already think about these things in one way or the other. But we're not doing it explicitly, which is where philosophy can aid us. I believe that awareness, new ways of seeing the world will create new "reflexes". It'll grow indignation, forethought and many other things - perhaps not always to the better either. But to abjure Kant again - morality is not the doctrine of how to make ourselves happy, it is the doctrine about how to become worthy of happiness.

I think Kants philosophy of duty and respect for persons is a genuinely good one for all the trouble it faces. Fernando Flores suggests in his book "1900 talets idéhistoria" (idea history of the 20th century) that "It's [the lefts] pathos comes from Kant". For those of you who are not so familiar with him, Kant suggests that we should always "act so that the maxim of our actions can be raised to a universal law" and that we shall also (paraphrasing this one:) "act so that we always respect the ends of another person, not just the means." Those are two formulations of his famous categorical imperative. Now, they stand before some massive problems but in general I think they're helpful. After all, what would happen if we all did a thing? And it commands us to make change, and to live differently. Something universalising is extremely suitable for the kind of moral indignation that seems to pervade the best parts of the left. Not eating at McDonalds, upholding our democratic rights and campaigning for a better world. Not everyone is ready to do that, of course, but we'll have to accept that. At least we'll be worthy of happiness, even if we are not happy.

To get back to what we talked about before, morality and moralism. What's the difference again? One of the main differences is that we're not relying on a God (who we've already seen, almost makes the moral endeavour impossible) and that we don't really care about such marginal issues as moralisers take their time with. I'm not even sure I have to answer the stance on gay rights and so on, but it basically goes along the lines of: of course they can get married! There's not even a debate here!

No, if we're interested in morality we should sneak out of peoples bedrooms and into the world. A world where people are dying, starving and killing. A world where a few are extremely wealthy and a many very poor. That's what morality is about; the world and the things in it.