Effective freedom definition free#

I am free to think about whatever I want to think about.

But on the other hand, even as a prisoner, I am likely to be free in many respects. I can't choose to go out for a stroll, eat a pizza, go to the cinema, and so on. If I'm imprisoned then, obviously, I'm not free. You might think that the meaning of ‘freedom’ is straightforward: at an individual level it means not being imprisoned. They contribute to the pressing debates about the limits of individual freedom that affect us today. Many of the central arguments transfer readily to the contemporary situation, if you make appropriate changes. The stress will always be on the arguments used rather than on the detailed historical context in which the views were originally expressed. In the process we'll be examining some of the classic philosophical defences of particular types of freedom. The aim is to explain and unravel some arguments for this kind of freedom. The arguments we'll be examining are arguments for political or social freedom: the freedom of the individual in relation to other people and to the state. A quick perusal of the philosophical writing about freedom will reveal the wide variety of approaches to political life which have been defended in the name of freedom. Just because one word (or two, if you count ‘liberty’) is used, it does not follow that there is one thing to which it refers. Many people have laid down their lives in the name of freedom, or of liberty (like most writers on the subject, I'll be using the words ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ interchangeably here) yet we should not lose sight of the fact that ‘freedom’ is used to mean many different and sometimes incompatible things.

It is hard to imagine anyone declaring that they are fundamentally opposed to it. Hardly anyone would argue that I should be free to steal your possessions simply because I want them but deciding where to set the limits on individual freedom in less extreme cases is no easy task. I shouldn't be allowed to walk into your house and help myself to your stereo and television. It would be absurd to argue that we should all have complete licence to do whatever takes our fancy no matter who is affected by our actions. Given that our desires often conflict, it would be impossible for us to live in a society which imposed no limits whatsoever on what we do. That is an element of the human situation. Usually this means curbing some of our more selfish desires in order to accommodate other people's interests. To live in a society requires all kinds of co-operation. As long as you think critically about the concept of freedom and are capable of arguing your case rather than simply stating your prejudices, you will be reading in the spirit in which they are intended. You needn't agree with these conclusions. The point is to engage with the arguments: to examine their structure and content to see if they really support their conclusions. However, this won't just be a survey of some interesting thoughts on the subject. Here we'll be examining the arguments some of them have used.

Philosophers at least since Plato's time have put forward answers to them. They are the sorts of issues that people are prepared to die for.Įven if you choose to ignore them, the way other people answer these questions will impinge on your life. They're not merely abstract puzzles for philosophers to ponder in comfortable armchairs. What are the limits of individual freedom in a civilised society? Should we tolerate unlimited freedom of speech, no matter how offensive the views expressed? Can the state ever be justified in interfering with what consenting adults choose to do in private? When, if ever, is coercion acceptable? Are all laws obstacles to freedom, or are they the very condition of achieving it? Should we sometimes force people to be free, or is that a contradiction in terms? These are serious questions.

Effective freedom definition