Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.

A long email exchange between Chris and SSC on the meaning of freedom. Feel free (whatever that means) to skip or chime in below.

CHRIS WRITING:

SSC: Last night in your comments (I paraphrase) you said: “True freedom is the freedom to do what you ought to do, not the freedom to do what you want to do.” This statement (which I was informed later came from Lord Acton) taken literally seems to me nonsensical. It is as if one was saying “A true apple is not an apple, but a banana.” Freedom, by definition, is the ability to do what you whatever you want, right or wrong. Being constrained to do what’s right may or may not be the correct way to order society, but it sure ain’t freedom. On the other hand, perhaps taking this statement literally is incorrect. Perhaps what you (and Acton and the Pope) mean when they talk about true freedom is something like “We should value freedom not because it lets people do whatever they want, but because it allows them to choose to do what they ought to do.” One may agree or disagree with this statement, but at least it makes literal sense. It is also quite far from the literal meaning of what I understood you to be saying. Is that what you meant?

SSC RESPONDS:

Freedom is the power to choose to do the right thing. The habits of sin – greed, lust, etc. -- deprive us of the power to choose to do the right thing. The government needs to encourage freedom (freedom from the habit of sin), discourage the habits of sin and control its consequences. For example, the “Just Say No” campaign against drug use, drug laws, police officers and prisons all encourage freedom (properly understood), discourage the habits of sin and control the consequences of sin. In contrast, laws promoting and regulating abortion promote sin, not freedom, encourage habits of sin and promote sins’ consequences. It seems to me that speaking of freedom outside of the context of right and wrong, to borrow a phrase from the debate last night is ideological, not reality.

CHRIS RESPONDS:

I think I am beginning to see the way you use the term freedom, but I am not quite there. Let's get concrete.

Suppose all the possible actions I can take regarding a particular decision are the letters A,B,C ... Z.

My understanding of the word "freedom" is in terms of choice sets - how big of a subset of {A,B,C, ..., Z} do I get to choose from? (The dictionary definition is
the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints.)
That is, suppose for Joe, it is possible to choose A,B, C, or D but for Mary,
she can only choose B or C (or else the government severely punishes her). In this case, I would say Joe is "more free" than Mary. His "choice set" includes everything
in Mary's choice set, but has additional elements as well.

In this {A,B,C,...,Z} framework, you use the word freedom differently. Suppose action A is the only moral choice. Then when you say "Freedom is the power to choose to do
the right thing" if Joe's choice set is {B,C, ..., Z} you would say he is not free. He cannot choose A. Further, I think if his choice set were {A} you would also say he is not free. He cannot "choose" to do A since he is given no other choice. I suppose you would say that if Joe has any choice set that includes A and any other choice
he is free. (I would not agree with this. If Joe is required to choose either A or Z, thinks Z really stinks but would love to do B, is he free?)

On the other hand, you seem also to use the term freedom to mean "preferring to take action A." That is, you reject defining the word freedom as having to do with the size of your choice set, although that is pretty much the dictionary definition. I think you would say a person when faced with choice set {A,B} who chooses A is free, while a person faced with the same choice set who chooses B is not free, since B is wrong and A is right. I think this is what you mean by "The habits of sin – greed, lust, etc. -- deprive us of the power to choose to do the right thing." But this seems to me to be simply mixing up the language and essentially saying "when I say `free', what I really mean is `moral' or 'not tempted'." Bill Clinton's lust did not make him unfree. He wasn't forced to be an adulterer. He freely chose to sin. Just because he was in the habit of doing so didn't make him unfree.

So again, I'm still confused by, or disagree with, what you mean when you use the term freedom.


SSC RESPONDS:

Look, freedom means free from sin. Sin can possess you. If you are in the habit of sin – let’s say laziness – you’re not choosing to be lazy; you’re just lazy. If you are in the habit of being greedy, you’re not choosing to be greedy; you are just greedy. People become confused about freedom because they do not recognize the possessive aspects of sin. That’s why a conversion experience frees one – frees one from the bondage of sin – to make decisions to be good. Even if you always choose good over evil (a mark of a saint), there are still a lot of decisions to make. We are all intended to be free, but the consequences of original sin prevent us from success. But, it is not a fool’s journey, with prayer, one can still prevail and achieve an eternal life. Again, I think your definition of freedom is unrealistic and an unuseful abstration. For example, it can’t be true that one is “free” to murder another or is “free” not to feed and educate their children? Or, in your example, no one says Bill Clinton was free to commit adultery? Was Adolf Hitler using his freedom when he murdered the Jews? No, of course not. Freedom must be understood as content-based (good-based), otherwise the term is no longer useful. The moral relativists, of course, and apparently the editors of some dictionaries want to make the term less useful. I disagree.

CHRIS RESPONDS:

Look, freedom means free from sin.

No. Freedom from sin means freedom from sin. Freedom is broader than that.

Sin can possess you. If you are in the habit of sin – let’s say laziness – you’re not choosing to be lazy; you’re just lazy. If you are in the habit of being greedy, you’re not choosing to be greedy; you are just greedy.

People become confused about freedom because they do not recognize the possessive aspects of sin. That’s why a conversion experience frees one – frees one from the bondage of sin – to make decisions to be good. Even if you always choose good over evil (a mark of a saint), there are still a lot of decisions to make. We are all intended to be free, but the consequences of original sin prevent us from success. But, it is not a fool’s journey, with prayer, one can still prevail and achieve an eternal life.

Sure. If you are lazy you are lazy and if you are greedy your are greedy. But a lazy person still chooses to lie on the couch all day, the greedy person still chooses not to give to charity and the lustful person still chooses to cheat on his wife. Each is free to do otherwise. They are not free to not want to lie on the couch, not give to charity or cheat. They can't, without a conversion, help their inclinations, their desire to sin. But they don't have to sin.

Again, I think your definition of freedom is unrealistic and an unuseful abstration. For example, it can’t be true that one is “free” to murder another or is “free” not to feed and educate their children? Or, in your example, no one says Bill Clinton was free to commit adultery?

Of course they do. The following would not be out place in an essay for instance:

This country does not legislate consensual sex. Any husband is perfectly free to cheat on his wife. On the other hand, his wife is perfectly free to divorce him for doing so.

Note in this example we both would say both the husband and wife are doing the wrong thing.

Was Adolf Hitler using his freedom when he murdered the Jews? No, of course not.

Sure he was. The problem with Europe was that Hitler was far too free to commit evil acts. That's one reason we went to war.

I think the problem is that in common use the term freedom is used in both a relative and absolute sense. When freedom is used in a relative sense ("More free", "less free"), common usage gives it little or no moral content. I think most people would agree that if I were given the legal right to kill as many Jews as I wanted, that would make me more free, but also that this would be a bad thing. When freedom is used in an absolute sense ("That man is free" or "that man is not free"), common usage gives the term moral content. That is, a man is free if he does not face UNJUST external constraints. So while not having the legal right to kill Jews may make me less free, it does not mean I'm not free.

Freedom must be understood as content-based (good-based), otherwise the term is no longer useful. The moral relativists, of course, and apparently the editors of some dictionaries want to make the term less useful. I disagree.

As argued above, common usage of the term freedom does have moral content when used in a global absolute sense.

You have this perfectly valid concept of "having your head on straight" or "not being a state of wanting things you shouldn't want." My problem is that I think you are hijacking the word freedom to describe it. And this just confuses things. Given your definition, how could you ever interpret the perfectly valid (and true) sentence "God gave men the freedom to reject Him."?

Cheers.

SSC RESPONDS:

Yes, In essence, “God gave man the freedom to reject him” is a heretical thought. God created man to have a free will. God did not cooperate in man’s rejection of God. Man was free to do good or to do no good. When a man chooses not to do good, he is not following God and he is doing no good (the absence of good is evil).

God’s creation is good. Man is free to do no good (which is evil), but then he is rejecting God’s creation, God’s plan, God’s freedom. When man chooses to do good, he is cooperating with God’s grace and participating in God’s gift of freedom.

In this context, a man who commits murder is not cooperating in God’s plan or God’s gift of freedom. He is evil or on a demonic track.

My definition of freedom is the one commonly understood in Christendom now for 2,000 years. The definition you are using is a product of the Enlightenment – undoubtedly intended as a part of the critique of the predominant Chriistian approach. It’s unfortunate that words become politicized footballs. But, Chritianity is so deeply-ingrained in the Western philosophical approach that the promoters of the Enlightement had no other choice but to use the words that were already in use.


CHRIS:

So it’s settled. I’m a heretic.