“I’ve always thought that freedom allows people to do what they want, and that this will result in increased happiness and a society which works better in the long run.”
Doing what one wants is not true freedom.
"There are two freedoms: the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; and the true, where a man is free to do what he ought."
-- Charles Kingsley
Many of the deviancies of our "modern" society would disappear if only the government would stop funding them.
Jahn,
I think your Charles Kingsley quote covered in one line what I spent pages on. Thank you.
I wish more of my Libertarian friends would put that line in perspective with the individual freedoms that are claimed and yet hardly understood.
Thomas, while I'm not a "libertarian", I recognize what you are saying, but need to add to it. It's my responsibility, and mine alone, to do what is right or moral. No other individual can make that choice for me. Freedom is, indeed, the condition where the individual can choose to do, say or think whatever they please. Ethical behavior is the condition where the individual chooses, of their own volition, to do, say, or think that which is right and rational for them. The problem comes in when people try to apply Charles Kingsley's quote as an external force to compel me to "do what I ought". Once you begin to compel me, my behavior is no longer ethical, I am doing "the right thing" because I fear a consequence, not because I think it is the right thing. Far too many who are moralistic in some fashion, whether the secular moralism of the left or the religious moralism of the right, fail to see that the behavior is not and cannot be ethical if I don't choose it.
I find it interesting that you chose to quote Paine to support your post, given his very vocal atheism (see The Age of Reason).
The crucial thing I think you miss throughout this piece is that it is not tolerance of behavior we find immoral or unethical that is the issue. It is tolerance of each individual's right to choose, for themself, what is moral that is the core value of liberty. Tolerance does not mean, as so many impute it to, a blind acceptance of whatever another person may choose to say or do. You can tolerate someone's choices while speaking out against them. But when you begin to take action to prevent those choices, then you have crossed the line to intolerance.
The way I see it, we have the privilege of standing on the shoulders of those who came before us. Many years ago, some really smart guys built a pretty good foundation. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty dagum good. Those who came after them saw a few flaws and amended the foundation, making it stronger.
However, since that time there have been people who are not content to enjoy the freedom and privilege of standing on that foundation. They see what they believe to be flaws, so they start chipping away at the foundation that is holding them up.
The generations that come after them have no historical perspective and see what they believe to be flaws - thinking that those flaws are inherent in the foundation, so they chip away even more.
Those of us who want to repair the damage and fix the foundation are labeled intolerant. The reason we want to hold onto and restore that foundation is, if it crumbles then we all go down with it.
"There is only one basic human right -- the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty -- the duty to take the consequences." -- P. J. O'Rourke
Does anyone really have a "right" to do what's wrong? Even if we do have the right to make the choice, the problem in our "modern" society is that too many people want to make the choices but not accept the consequences. You can choose your actions, but you can't choose the consequences.
"Our existence is governed by natural laws, of which we have only an imperfect knowledge. Almost all of our problems are caused by our attempts at circumventing those laws." -- Master Doh-San
Yes, everyone has a right to do "wrong." That is THE basic human right, from which everything flows. If we have only the ability to act in the perfect way, we have no free will at all.
People don't want the consequences, of course. And we've set up our system to keep people from being harmed by their choices, in some cases.
As Owlish pointed out, if you don't the right to do something wrong then you have no free will. Whether you are willing to deal with the consequences of your actions (right or wrong is irrelevant when discussing dealing with the consequences), or not, you will have to deal with them.
The problem, Jahn and Thomas, with the contention that you only have the right to do what you ought to do is that this begs the question, who decides? And what if the person deciding is wrong?
Please don't tell me god, because the problem with that is that some human has to interpret what god told them. I'm a deist, so I don't believe in direct, personal revelation. Are you going to tell me that I must accept your direct, personal revelations? In that case, this is not freedom except to do as you say I should.
Sorry, wrong again.
No one has the right to do wrong. People have the right to choose to do wrong, but there's a difference.
Good Morning, it being just past midnight and I should be sleeping in preparation for my Sunday meetings. Jennifer is in labor ready to deliver any moment and so sleep was not “in the cards” for me. I have been reading some of the discussions regarding choice, liberty, freedom, right and wrong and so many aspects of the human condition which constitute what we call “happiness”.
I thought it might be useful to go back and read some of the articles that have brought discussion from this same basic group of folks as pertain to our American way of life. I ran across some dialogue on Pascal’s Wager, the gambler’s rationalization on religion and playing the odds. I thought it might prove useful to apply some of those “odds” when discussing the agency of man, choices if you will, freedom to believe say or do.
Under Pascal’s Wager the first part of the gamble is that God even exists, thereafter, breaking down the possibility that God does indeed exist that only one religion out of all those being practiced would be the right one. So the task at hand would be to gamble your eternal soul on such a wager of thought, assumes that there is such a thing as an eternal soul and so on and so on.
For those unwilling to gamble each and every aspect of Pascal’s Wager, go with me to the first level of such a wager; “Does God exist and if so, does He expect his offspring to act in an obedient manner?” I would not impose my beliefs on anyone; however, to enter into discussions that by their very nature include aspects of eternity, such as the “agency of man”, “unalienable rights” and “endowed by their Creator”; such discussions are pointless without inclusion of that Creator.
Are you sure enough of the hand you are holding, to use a gambler’s patter, to discount the odds of their being no such divine Creator, that our country was framed on lies or at the very least, outrageous fabrications of truths not known and only hoped for? When our Founders used such grand words to define Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as being unalienable rights, were they using flowery prose or did they actually hold such terminology as sacred? There have been those who use the intellectual approach to the term unalienable rights, calling them natural rights as a means of skirting any mention of our Creator. I have covered that in some detail already and see no point in rewriting those same exact thoughts.
For America to work in its grand design, a design that was inspired, the citizenry must keep in mind the Author of those Liberties and be aware of their relationship to him. It is not enough to behave, follow the law of the land and avoid trampling on your fellow citizen’s “space”. One of the reasons America is in such a mess right now is because so many of the population have forgotten key elements necessary to express our responsibility and gratitude to our Creator. I used the word forgotten when in fact it should have been ignored, a min
completion of comment too large to fit in one section...
...I used the word forgotten when in fact it should have been ignored, a minor and yet significant attitude variance. While to forget may entail faded memory, to ignore implies willful neglect of responsibility.
I gave my son a stereo for his birthday one year, something that he could have enjoyed up in his room without taking up too much space in an already limited area. Upon opening the gift he expressed disappointment for having been handed “a piece of crap”, not at all what he would have purchased. I explained that he need not be ashamed of the gift; I would return it to the store and his friends would not have to know about it. I returned it to the store and pocketed the money, afterwards explaining the concept of gifts and gratitude so that on the slim chance of any future gifts, there might be some semblance of gratitude expressed instead of insults and other signs of ingratitude.
This same principle applies to each and every citizen living in the United States of America. We clamor with flags waving about our freedoms, our rights and our rights and our rights; never stopping to acknowledge the necessary gratitude for the Author of those rights and freedoms, ignoring our heritage and in the process we thumb our nose at the prospect of having to be obedient to the God who took such efforts to establish a land where we would indeed be free.
If this is offensive to your intellect, think how much more offense has been inflicted upon our Creator by a land full of ungrateful children, spoiled to the core with sophomoric banter, superficial acknowledgement with no sincerity or true feeling. Only a spoiled child would actually believe that he could do anything he/she wanted to do without there being attached consequences for each and every action. “Whatever makes you happy, baby!”, is not a responsible thought, even when such presumed “happiness” does not infringe on anyone else’s “rights”.
What consequences are you talking about here- natural consequences (for example, contracting an STD by engaging in risky sexual behavior) or artificial consequences imposed by government (for example, criminal consequences for unapproved sexual behavior)?
Jahn wrote: "Sorry, wrong again.
No one has the right to do wrong. People have the right to choose to do wrong, but there's a difference."
Who decrees this to be so? You? Or a divine being? If decree'd by a divine being, can you show me the decree, or must I trust your interpretation of the direct revelation?
And Thomas, what if I don't agree with you that the Constitution was divinely inspired? What if, like Thomas Paine (whom you seem to admire) I don't believe in god at all?
As a matter of celebration, Jennifer had a little girl at 6:21am; mother and child are both in good health.
Comment to Line in the Sand July 24, 2005
The beautiful part about the agency of man comes about when given choices that are well within the framework of legality, those choices which can only be determined as right or wrong by the individual because they affect only the individual. These usually are morality based choices; but can include a myriad of character based decisions as well.
The conscious mind works out the solution and is directs the individual’s actions based on all aspects of the environment, social attitudes, personal integrity and religious beliefs.
Most of the time I put myself in a position of having to choose between a good or proper choice and one that is equally good or proper. “Should I go to the ballgame on Wednesday to watch the Astros or should I stay at home and catch the game on cable?” Then I could ask, “Should I go to the ballgame on Sunday afternoon, skip my church meetings or stay at home and catch it on cable.”
Neither of the two questions posed to myself could be considered anything other than one good choice over a second equally good choice; never mind that you may not enjoy watching baseball. The second question brings into play, pardon the pun, my own religious beliefs and the accompanying responsibilities which are also self imposed. I know that if I don’t show up at church to listen to the prepared talks that I will miss out on spiritual guidance and at the same time my attendance, at least as far as the over all scheme of things goes, will not have much if any affect on me or the church. The congregation will continue with or without me and I will continue with or without my having followed each and every minor agreement that I have entered into; attending all of my church meetings being on the list of those things agreed upon.
I could say that my back was hurting and rather than aggravate an already nasty set of nerve endings by sitting in an uncomfortable chair at church I could improve my overall physical situation by sitting in my easy chair at home; the ball game acting as a mere diversion from my pains. While it would be true, it would also be less than I expect of myself based on my own knowledge of how I tend to rationalize in favor of the things I want to do rather than accept what is expected of my by God.
Essentially I am the only one who can determine the direction of my character, my integrity and my eternal progression. These intangibles cannot be imposed for they slip beneath the “radar” of society; but I know and so does God, when I fail to choose the best of choices and settle for something less.
If you are unable to believe that the Constitution was an inspired document, that our nation was not reserved as choice above all others for the preparation of the Fullness of Times, the restoration of the Gospel, then that is something for you to work ou
completion of comment...
...then that is something for you to work out as you investigate the truths which have been placed before your mind. There is nothing that I could do to persuade or cajole you into such a belief; such knowledge is given and dictated by the Spirit as a witness to one who only lacks additional testimony. The idea that miracles are not wasted on those with no testimony of spiritual things is true. While many see the same miracle, only those with the ability and desire to understand the workings of the Spirit gain strength from such miracles. You could have a conversation with one of God’s chosen, heard all about the Great Plan of Salvation and wondered about such marvelous thoughts; but unless you were of a mind to ask God for confirmation then you would have to chalk it up to having talked to just another man, maybe one who seemed sincere, but just another man.
So, in answer to your question, Eric, if you don’t believe in God, ( I use the upper case G as a matter of respect as should you regardless of whether you believe Him to be God; no different than my using the letter P in front of the word President, even when I don’t agree with his policy or legitimacy as so many do not. I often read Willow Tree’s blogs and notice the old custom of not printing His name out of respect; as she places “G_d” into her text. Such simple signs of respect should not be limited to God; being extended in all directions to include our fellow humans. ), then I can only hope that one day you will gain such a testimony. Should you choose not to seek for such truths then the shame of it is yours to bear for such truths are not hidden; but are for all to see if they but look and desire.
Goodness, I don't know what more can be added to this thread. Your post was an inspiration, TF, and in a way I'm glad I waited until Sunday to read it. Our priest was excellent today on inspiring us to allow God to help us to find "The Treasure Within Us All," since of course, we are all His creation; but there are those for which no treasure seems associated: only hate, greed, debauchery, lies, and pathos. Paradoxically, some of these are the ones who cry the loudest for Freedom and Equality, even as they choose to hurt and oppress others.
Indeed, in the end Freedom is only Freedom if one is RESPONSIBLE with it, and ACCOUNTABLE to humanity and to God -- or if that bugs some, then at least to God's laws as realized here on earth by noble government institutions (well, isn't THAT a concept: "noble government institutions"! LOL). Without this, Freedom equals Anarchy.
"Most of the time I put myself in a position of having to choose between a good or proper choice and one that is equally good or proper."
An excellent point. Sounds familiar.
"Most of our choices in life are not so much between absolutely good and absolutely bad as they are between good and better, or bad and worse." -- Master Doh-San
Dear TF. Wow! I find in you a branch dwelling in the vine and in the trueness of the apostolic manner a witness unto the Gospil of Jesus the Christ; true Savior and Redeemer of this lost world; that is the blessed message inspired by the Holy Spirit.
And an example for me in the ways of argument for the sake of the Kingdome of Heaven. May our Lord and Master ever continue to bless you and give unto you the gift to feed the greater flock and know that you have fed great mens soul with the bread of life, and may so dwell that when he cometh find you doing as well and reward you in such a manner your humility has garnered; reward and wealth which only our Father have treasured up for men who are found faithfully working his fields.
TFS, I have tossed some of your original thoughts into my own salad reply on my own site.
Eric,
You made a comment to my article that more than implied that Thomas Paine had no religious inclinations, that he was an atheist, and why would I want to use him in my discussion. I went back into my copy of Common Sense to where I had read some of his thoughts on setting up a Continental Charter as a means of government.
“What if, like Thomas Paine (whom you seem to admire) I don't believe in god at all?”
If I were Brad, playing poker with his friends and holding onto my cards after having called; here are the cards I’d use to show that I had at least one ace in the hole. On page 39 of Common Sense you will read:
“The conferring members being met, let their business be to frame a Continental Charter, or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Charta of England) fixing the number and manner of choosing members of congress, and member of assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them: (always remembering, that our strength is continental, not provincial) securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things, the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately after which, the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies which shall be chosen conformable to the said charter, to be the legislators and governors of this continent for the time being; whose peace and happiness, may God preserve, Amen”
For a man who has no belief in God, no religious inclinations or desires to be among those counted as having a belief in anything other than the arm of flesh, Thomas Paine wrote down a rather impressive statement of hope in the form of a prayer offered up to God and closed appropriately with, Amen.
Commenting by HaloScan
