Human nature is a topic of debate stemming back to ancient philosophers and has been disputed by just about every school of thought since. For that reason, these thoughts, as I must maintain, are focused more on the state of human nature, with the idea that humans are essentially good and with the perception that humans have freewill, while holding there exist moral codes regardless of human opinion. Otherwise, it's a Lockean /libertarian /moral objectivist viewpoint. The intent of this essay is not to debate the merit of these philosophical foundations, but rather the clarification provides the framework from which these views are expressed.
Freedom versus Control
A dichotomy exists within humans as it pertains to freedom. From my understandings of human nature, coming from the viewpoint of the above mentioned philosophical underpinnings, humans want to be free to do as they please, even though they may feel a sense of social obligation. Humans also have the desire to control, whether it is themselves, their possessions, their surroundings or environment, their families, their communities or societies at large.
When it comes to control, it can be good for humans to control themselves, their possessions and to a limited extent their families, as long as the morally objective value of not initiating harm is respected. The dichotomy arises, as it pertains to freedom, when the desire to control extends beyond the personality to environment, other individuals, communities or societies. To put it simply, the conflict rears its head with the assertion, "I love my freedom. It's just yours I'm not too fond of." When force is used to exert control, as opposed to persuasion, it becomes a question of morality.
So how does one balance that dichotomy? Half the battle is just being cognizant of the values themselves. When an individual takes time and dedicates some brain cells to understanding the concept of freedom, one will inevitably question how the interplay with others affects his or her freedom, as well as how his or her actions affect others' freedom. Action is the exercise of control.
The nature of freedom is a negative concept. A negative concept is measured by the absence of an opposing positive concept. For example, cold is measured by the degree of heat that is absent, and dark is measured by the absence of light. Conversely, control and force are a positive concepts. The positive concept is actually what is quantifiable or measured against. Freedom is measured by the absence of coercion, or control forced by others. However, a negative concept does not imply it is a negative value, nor does a positive concept imply a positive value.
By this definition, freedom can’t be given; it can only be taken away. Liberating a man from captivity is not making him free; it is removing a level of control that impeded the freedom he had before that state of control. Freedom is restored by removing control. This, of course, does not consider whether or not the man ought to be in captivity or controlled. But it does propose freedom is the natural state existing in the absence of an opposing force. This lends to the notion that humans are born free, until they are forced or persuaded not to be.
As creatures possessing freewill, humans have to make choices. With regard to freedom and control, a human must choose which value will dominate. The extent one is valued will have a converse effect on the opposing value. If freedom is valued more, then control must be valued less and vice versa.
Humans must make a choice, whether or not they are cognizant of it. This personal choice invariably has implications on the personal choices of others. This is to say, if one chooses control over others, one must accept other's control, and if one chooses freedom from others, one must accept other's freedom. Moreover, if one values freedom, he or she must give up a level of control over others, and if one values control, he or she must give up a level of freedom from others. Due to the negative nature of freedom, it cannot be forced upon others, though it can be defended from force of control from others.
Which is the better value: freedom or control? Are these values constant, or is there some fluidity depending on circumstance? If one chooses freedom as the dominant value, are there not times when control must be exerted and freedom must recede? This is where morality comes into play.
The Moral Distinction
There are two camps of philosophical thought regarding morality; one is subjective and the other is objective. Subjective morality holds that morality exists as a condition of conscious thought, and that morality would not exist with the absence of conscious beings. Thus, all morality is of human opinion, for which ideas of morality cannot be judged as more right or more wrong since there is no objective criteria to make assessments against.
Objective morality holds that there is a natural moral code or law, much like gravity, that exists independent of conscience beings, and that morality is not a human fabrication; morality merely awaits detection from conscious beings. Thus, human attempts to approximate the reality of morality are subjective, and the rightness or wrongness of that approximation can be valued since objective criteria exist to make assessments against.
Either camp makes strong arguments, but the point of this essay is not to debate the philosophical nature of morality. By addressing the viewpoints of these different approaches, I am simply including a frame of reference to the view of morality expressed herein, which is in favor of objective morality. By that standpoint, the objective moral view articulated in this essay is that initiation of harmful force upon others, whether it is murder, rape, theft or fraud is inherently bad, and that freedom from the initiation of harmful force from others is inherently good. By stating “harmful” as a condition of “force”, I am conceding that there may by instances where initiating force is morally appropriate, so long as that force is not harmful.
In terms of the freedom versus control dichotomy of human nature, moral objectivity dictates that freedom is ultimately the better value. Regardless of religious views, whether theistic or atheistic, reason and rational self-interest brings one to the same self-evident conclusion that freedom is the ultimate morality to contend with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I feel its important to point out that we as Americans, live in a relatively civil society and that has a direct influence on our moral standards. Human beings have one thing in common, we're all products of our environment. For instance, if we lived in a communist society, or a society where violence is part of the "norm", our moral values would differ substantially. So with that in mind, wouldn't our depiction of "human nature" differ as well?
Its impossible to gauge the moral values of people who have never experienced freedom in any form or people who have been denied even the basic notion of "love thy neighbor".
When we hear the term "terrorist" or "suicide bomber", we are pre wired in a sense, to reflect upon it in very negative terms. Yet in other countries, these acts of violence are praised and glorified. How do nations with such conflicting beliefs find a common ground to work with? Is it even possible?
"Superiority" is the true culprit here. It incites the desire for control regardless of whom is "right" and whom is "wrong".
Make no mistake, "control" is a good thing. Its the extent to which it is used and enforced that can bring about the negative. After all, a society that is completely void of ANY form of control would be...an out-of-control society.
America, as a country, has managed to find a reasonable balance of control and freedom. And its up to the people to make sure we keep that scale balanced.
LM,
Thanks for your comments. You brought up some excellent points. Where I was addressing these ideas from philosophical positions, and from very particular ones at that, you countered with some pragmatic challenges in your critique.
The philosophical views I was expressing are individualistic in nature, so when it comes to addressing the actions or beliefs of societies, in these philosophical terms they are just a collection of individuals, each possessing the freedom v. control dichotomy. And I argue that objective moral laws exist, regardless of what that society beleives or understands, since miral objectivity must apply to every single individual, not just the ones that are members of a said society.
I’d like to address those points and see if I can illustrate how these realistic issues actually support the philosophies. Of course, one could counter with a different set of philosophies, and undoubtedly present a very strong argument. In the end, they are all just opinions.
"if we lived in a communist society, or a society where violence is part of the "norm", our moral values would differ substantially. So with that in mind, wouldn't our depiction of "human nature" differ as well?"
You bring up two good points here.
First, regardless of what society we live in, we will find substantial differences in moral values. I argue those are subjective, not objective. Obviously, in any societies you will witness group-think mentality or conventional wisdom, especially where such ideas are learned from a very young age and taught through life. However, if the entire population thinks violence is tolerable, it doesn’t diminish the fact that it is still immoral. I would argue that they have made very poor approximations of morality based on an objective moral code.
However, in the societies you mentioned specifically, are there not often revolutions against them? Are there not refugees who have fled? These are people who grew up with these mindsets, yet they have said, “Hey, this isn’t right!” I don’t think we are so much products of our environment as we are influenced by it. My point is that you don’t have to be; you can reject the influence. And individuals often do.
Second, the set of philosophies one clings to determines the view on human nature. Again, this can have variances in any society. The collection of philosophies held by people is essentially what makes up their “world view”. In most societies you will see a commonality by the majority of its members. But I doubt you will find any society where 100% of the people adhere to the same world views. I make the same point here: one can reject the influence and adopt any view of human nature he or she wants to. If one values freedom more, then he or she will reject views that impede that freedom. If they value control more, then they may conform.
"Its impossible to gauge the moral values of people who have never experienced freedom in any form or people who have been denied even the basic notion of "love thy neighbor"."
From my philosophical view point in favor of the theory of objective morality, I’d have to disagree with that statement.
Being that I believe there is moral objectivity, which must apply to all individuals, there exist criteria to make assessments against. Thus, it is quite possible to gauge the moral values of any person or group of people.
There are few criteria for what is objectively moral, but it is easier stated by what is objectively immoral: murder; physical, emotional or sexual violence; theft; property destruction; and fraud. There may be a couple more, but those are the big ones. Pretty much most anything else can be considered objectively moral.
"When we hear the term "terrorist" or "suicide bomber", we are pre wired in a sense, to reflect upon it in very negative terms. Yet in other countries, these acts of violence are praised and glorified. How do nations with such conflicting beliefs find a common ground to work with? Is it even possible?"
Good question! Consider this: one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
It is possible for nations with conflicting beliefs to find common ground, but with the case of America and terror-sanctioning nations, it is extremely unlikely. Nations are defined by their governments, and governments are institutions of humans. So this is really a question of human nature. When it comes to the freedom v. control dichotomy, I think it’s clear which of the two values those who hold the seats of power favor. The same goes for the cheering crowds. And there in lies the conflict.
From a moral objectivist view, neither side does a fantastic job.
""Superiority" is the true culprit here. It incites the desire for control regardless of whom is "right" and who is "wrong"."
You have the right idea, but from a philosophical perspective, you just said it backwards. Control is the true culprit here. It incites a desire for superiority regardless of who is right and who is wrong. Who is right or wrong makes no difference, since the moral views are subjective; it is about control.
However, from an objectively moral view, it should read; regardless of who is “wrong” or “more wrong”.
"Make no mistake, "control" is a good thing. Its the extent to which it is used and enforced that can bring about the negative."
I agree. But I say control can be a good thing. It is when control is forced upon another that it is a bad thing.
"After all, a society that is completely void of ANY form of control would be...an out-of-control society."
This is almost certainly true. History certainly leans in that direction. However, keep in mind my thoughts were regarding human nature of the individual, not the society.
"America, as a country, has managed to find a reasonable balance of control and freedom."
By “country”, I am guessing you are referring to the government? If so, I’d say you are correct—for now. The scale has been slowly tipping towards unreasonable in favor of control for some time now.
"And its up to the people to make sure we keep that scale balanced."
True. But I’d prefer we kept the scale tipped more toward freedom.
Post a Comment