The Moral Limits of Freedom

Rodney D. Coates*~

I start from the basic premise that freedom is not an absolute. That is to say, one is not absolutely free, that there are obvious limits to our freedom seem unassailable.  Simply put, our freedoms are limited to the extent that they impinge upon the freedom on another.  Having said that, exactly what are these limits and what is the nature of these limits.  My mother would remind me often that “The fact that I can do something does not mean that I should do that thing.”  The determination of what freedoms I might exercise versus those which I should not is more than a question of expedience.  Rather, the determination should be a question of morality. 

I understand that in this day and age, the idea of morality is rarely invoked.  Morality, that strange idea that some things are not only wrong, but repulsively so.   The fact that we are rarely repulsed suggests that our moral compass is either broken or way off course.  And our lack of moral guides means that we fail to become or recognize those events or situations that allow us, in the words of Stéphane Hessel, “Indignez-vous” or to get indignant.  At 91 Mr. Hessel, a former WWII French Resistance freedom fighter, argues that our inability or unwillingness to become indignant lies at the heart of many of our social problems, ills, and apathy.  The fact that we have lost this capacity to get morally outraged means that we are so easy to dismiss, marginalize, or disregard problems such as child pornography and the international human trafficking, extreme poverty and pandemics, global warming and disasters, homophobic and other hate crimes, entrenched racial and sexual inequities, xenophobia and imperialism.  I would go even further by argue that many of these morally indefensible problems often hide behind the veneer of freedom.  And it is to these ill conceived notions of freedom that I would place limits on in the name of morality.

In the name of free markets, freedom of speech, and freedom ‘writ large’ many would excuse the wonton destruction of children’s lives in sweat shops in Bangladesh, India, or throughout the developing world.  It is in the name of cultural freedom that female genital mutilation, honor killings (where Pakistani, Indian, or Kurdish teenage girls can murder if they dared to want to reject the husbands chosen for them).  There are even those who argue that when homosexuals in this country, or around the globe, are singled out for viscous hate crimes –they essentially got what they deserved for daring “to choose to be gay”.  Many argue that such things as blood diamonds, deforestation, off shore drilling, mining, and etc. are more easily and effectively handled by a free market.  As a consequence –sustainable wages, genocide, environmental disasters, and global toxicity are all dismissed or assumed less important than virtually, unregulated free markets.  It is the free markets, by the way which has produced or at least encouraged much of the African Debt crises, Middle Eastern Political Instability, and the current world recession.    Freedom is more than just a word and freedom is more that a right.  Freedom is also a responsibility which must be conditioned by moral proscriptions.

Moral proscriptions tied to freedom would impose categorical limits on just how free we are.  Recognizing the non-universality of religion, I support deriving these categorical limits from social justice.  At the very least, a social justice informed morality would limit freedom to categorical equals, categorical equity, and categorical imperatives.  For brevities sake, let us examine a few examples.  A social justice morality emphasizing equality would recognize that the only way a free market can operate is if both capital and labor are free to negotiate prices, wages, and profits.  A market that only recognizes the right of corporations and not the rights of labor by definition would therefore be patently unjust.  A social justice morality emphasizing equity would recognize that differing levels of inequality or origins (born into poverty, born with disabilities, etc.) cannot presume, by definition, equal treatment or opportunities.  It would therefore recognize that equality might actually represent a liability, and a principle of equity is more advisable.  Such a system recognizes that those starting off with obvious liabilities would need more resources –educationally, medical, etc. – then those with more.  Thus , an equitable system would, while patently unequal, allow for the maximization of individual/group development and consequently freedom.  Lastly, a social justice morality reflecting categorical imperatives –would prioritize humans over machines, societies over corporations, and environments over profits. 

The fullest _expression_ of human potential can only be realized by recognizing and incorporating these moral proscriptions into the very fabric of our social contract.   Doing so will increase the likelihood that we will ultimately develop sustainable societies, developments, and a world that values humanity.

*Note: Rodney D. Coates is professor of social justice, sociology and gerontology at Miami University

He can be reached at coatesrd@muohio.edu

 

Posted by TheBlackList
http://www.theblacklistpub.nin.com
Follow me on Twitter and on Facebook
PhoneMeYourNews @ 646-820-5210

Votes: 0
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of TheBlackList Pub to add comments!

Join TheBlackList Pub


https://theblacklist.net/