Freedom and Responsibility (part 1)

Freedom is one necessary condition for any of us to become human.  Without freedom, it’s pretty hard for one to attain some sense of self-realization or to actualize one’s potentialities.

Becoming human, here, has a different meaning.  It has two connotations.  First, it connotes a down-to-earth reality of human beings.  This human reality is no longer the ideal self of Plato, which belongs to the World of Ideas, nor the moral self of St Thomas, which belongs to the heavenly Paradise, but the self with human experiences.  It is the kind of self which is very in touch with the world and all of its worldly concerns.  The tendency of Plato’s view of the ideal self is to give up human experiences and be obsessed with the ideal things in life.  For Plato, what is important in man is his soul.  So, the body is somehow left “unattended,” specifically the desires and emotions.  It’s not only that desires and emotions not given much importance but they’re also considered as hindrances for one to achieve the ideals in life.  This is also of the moral self of St Thomas.  St Thomas believed that a human being has to follow his/her natural tendency to do good as it is implanted in his/her soul by the supreme good Creator/ God.  If possible, at all times, he/she has to follow the dictates of his/her conscience.  Otherwise, salvation will not come to his/her way.  These two tendencies are other-worldly and considered no humanly. 

Becoming human is understood, in this context, as necessarily human without any color of otherworldly dimensions.  The ideal of this self-project is ultimately self-realization as understood by Erick Erickson.  Erickson’s hierarchy of needs shows different levels of needs of human beings, which ultimately ends up with self-realization.  Self-realization is only attained once the lower levels are fulfilled like the physiological needs, safety needs, and the need to belong.  This way up on the hierarchy is very rooted in one’s experiences, which implies that all other aspects such as desires and emotions are recognized as part of human growth and development. 

Becoming human, therefore, is inconceivable if one has no freedom.  In physiological level, for example, Erickson believes that if basic needs like food, clothing, shelter are met, one is free to move upward or say, he’s free to attend to other of his/her needs.  If he/she fails to meet these basic needs, then it’s hard for him/her to fulfil some of the higher needs.  In real life situations, if one has nothing to eat, or keeps on looking for food every meal, it’s hard for him/her to meet some of his/her higher needs like safety needs or need to belong.  Freedom in this sense is understood as free from restrictions coming from external factors.  It’s undeniably true that one’s exercise of freedom must have been done in an environment –physical or social, where there are less infractions of liberty.  Physical environment may include the immediate place we live like dwelling in Alaska means we’re not at liberty to wear light clothes, or may include the available resources in the place where we live.  Social environment refers to practices, customs, laws, etc. of the group where we live and belong.  These social conventions have a “force of a habit” influencing us to conform with the group.

HUMAN FREEDOM

Is man free?  What is the source of freedom?  Philosophers in the past claimed that human being has two faculties: will and understanding.  Will intends for what is good whereas understanding for what is true.  Whereas will serves practical purposes, understanding for theoretical purposes.  Human will is the source of freedom.  Although there are several definitions of human will like Medieval philosophers identified will as the will to do good, Kant uses the term “good will,” Nietzsche uses “will to power,” but we can highlight two important implications from these definitions: (1) will is a free act/ volition, and (2) will is the will to do what is good.  Based on the first point, with this faculty of willing, man is a free agent.  By exercising one’s volition/ will, he/she makes a choice from multiple alternatives.  By having a choice, one exercises his/her freedom. 

BF Skinner, however, argues that one’s exercise of making a choice (or his/her willing) is actually influenced by his/her environment.  “Man can be conditioned,” Skinner claims.  Willing (in a sense, freedom) is an illusion since in every possible way, man’s environment curtails his/her making of choice.  Willing does not go beyond the possible alternatives already available in his/her immediate environment.  In a certain sense, environment –physical or social, influences one’s decision. But if we look at it from the perspective of the one who makes that decision, we can still conclude that the decision he makes is still his and his alone.  No one has done it for him; some external influences are present though.  I think, the problem of Skinner is a simple neglect of the difference between the “act of willing,” and the “circumstance of willing.”  Skinner makes emphasis of the circumstances in the process of willing.  But if the emphasis is given in the “act of willing” itself, we surely arrive at the conclusion that man is freely making a choice.  Conditions –whether external or internal, are always present in making decisions but it doesn’t defy the fact that “the act of making choices” is volitional, not conditional.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty supports that idea that “decision making is done in a certain situation” but it doesn’t necessarily mean that “decision” is not conditional –depending on the conditions.  Though decision is situational –depends on a given situation but it is always volitional.  For example, there are many conditions why a teenager will engage in premarital sex.  First, we can cite some external factors like peer-pressure and it’s a common story she heard from teenagers like her.  Perhaps, it will come to her senses that “everybody is doing it.”  So, she decides to do it herself.  Second, we can also cite some internal factors like it’s a good feeling to be in love and a nice feeling too to engage in sex.  Taking all these factors, we conclude that her decision to engage in it is primarily conditioned –thus, she has no freedom, no choice but to do it.  In a certain sense, it’s true!  But, if she opts not to engage in it, then her option is still conditioned.  Thus, in either way –whether to engage in premarital sex or not, her decision is conditioned –thus, not free. 

Let’s try to look the same situation in this way.  Take all the conditions (external and internal) as the given situation of a teenager who’s in a dilemma of indulging in sex or not.  In fact, this is the situation of teenagers in modern times because of the influence of Western culture through mass and social media.  This teenager is already in this situation.  This given situation offers her some options to choose from; and her decision is always within the bounds of the given situation.  She cannot make any decision regarding the matter outside the given situation.   In other words, her decision cannot be done in a vacuum.  So, decision-making is always situational.  As mentioned above, though decision-making is always situational but never conditional.  It is at all times volitional. 

In conclusion, human freedom is not illusory.  What is illusory is when we claim that man has no freedom.