[yaromil]

Hi there, just wondered how this duty to be free and encourage freedom could apply to law, would we not preference some freedoms above others through habit, like the right to own property over freedom of movement ? Or would there be no law as law is backed by force which is not freedom. Ideally there would be no law.

Hi, without (normative) laws there will be arbitrariness. The only way to avoid it (and all violence that comes with it) is by contract. The contract is equivalent to “rejection of violence” (BTW “the property” or “freedom of movement” is also the consequences of the contract). It seems confusing at first — why freedom can only be brought to society by laws? Freedom is one for all, common for all. There cannot be freedom for one at the expense of others (for several reasons, one is such conditions create fear). Human freedom manifests itself by the unique own personality, ability to create something new, and it is only possible when nothing suppresses it (ie violence, determinism).

Laws are backed by force as long as there are those who do not want to participate in the contract. If all people were ethical no force would be necessary.
 

I was thinking at best, this is all pragmatic – freedom is a necessary illusion within a complex determinism. Novelty can come out of determinism, as determined conditions change over time, less like laws and more like ‘tendencies’ or ‘habits’.

Natural laws never show themselves exactly. They all are our abstractions of stochastic (more or less random) processes. And still they are the same. Otherwise we could not be able to see/learn them. We learn laws because their manifestations repeat. The definition of the new, novelty, is “it did not exist before” which directly contradicts the definition of the law (ie “repetition”).
 

Determinism isn’t evil, it just IS.

As long as we strive for something better, the existing is evil. However, this matter is more complex because there are degrees of evil. If we can use something deterministic as a means to our goal (ie freedom) we consider it as a relative good. If something deterministic interferes, obstructs or hinders with our goal (for instance death, tsunami, human violence, etc), we see it as (relative) evil.

Basically, freedom as the supreme value gives us the scale to measure evil.

[yaromil]

First, we “know” freedom from its oppositions, ie determinism.

Are we to take oppositions to be necessarily true? Is freedom really the opposition of determinism?

We cannot define freedom formally but for all practical needs including discussions it is so.

[yaromil]

Thanks for posting, welcome to OPF!

I like the metaphysics of freedom, we would all like to be free(r), but as you said, there is no way to know freedom, so how can you possibly know if freedom is the primary moving force of the Good, or even progress?

Thanks. First, we “know” freedom from its oppositions, ie determinism. We learn natural laws and then we find ways to overcome the limitations they put on us. The more useful our knowledge (ie the freer we get), the closer we are to the truth. Second, determinism is by definition repetitions, which means it cannot create anything new. So, the only alternative left is freedom that lies at the basis of evolution (and all kinds of progress which are the continuation of evolution in society).
 

Also, doesn’t framing freedom in a context of duty take away freedom?

Again, it is the question of alternatives. Either we have a duty to be free(r) or we are (to have a “duty”) to be the subject of natural laws. In other words, there cannot be freedom without the moral duty to be free because all our other wishes are consequences of determinism (of physical, biological, etc forces).

So the only solution is to clearly define social rules in such a way they do not put unnecessary limitations on our drive to freedom. This could be done through the general universal contract only.

[Author]

Posts