What is freedom?

[bob135]

It seems that there are frequent debates about determinism/free will, many of which could be resolved or at least moved forward if freedom were clearly defined. When defining freedom, I think you can say it is either an inherent property or something that we ascribe.
The idea of freedom as an inherent property seems incompatible with cause and effect. I don't understand how something can be both caused and free. This shifts the debate in favor of determinism, if you accept cause, otherwise free will is quite possible.
I think it is much easier to handle freedom if "free" and "unfree" are just ways of classifying people, actions, or anything else, having little to do with their inherent nature. I think the simplest definition would be to say that a person is free if they are responsible for their actions, and not free if they are not responsible for their actions. This makes free will possible and compatible with determinism.
Discuss.

 

[TeddyKGB]

If "free" is the opposite of "caused," is it synonymous with "random"?

 

[FreezBee]

If "free" is the opposite of "caused," is it synonymous with "random"?

No, "random" means "behaving statistically according to a uniform probability distribution". Well, usually it does

It seems that there are frequent debates about determinism/free will, many of which could be resolved or at least moved forward if freedom were clearly defined. When defining freedom, I think you can say it is either an inherent property or something that we ascribe.
The idea of freedom as an inherent property seems incompatible with cause and effect. I don't understand how something can be both caused and free. This shifts the debate in favor of determinism, if you accept cause, otherwise free will is quite possible.

Good points - determinism is somehow appealing. Except that you really can't really decide to argue for it

I think it is much easier to handle freedom if "free" and "unfree" are just ways of classifying people, actions, or anything else, having little to do with their inherent nature. I think the simplest definition would be to say that a person is free if they are responsible for their actions, and not free if they are not responsible for their actions. This makes free will possible and compatible with determinism.

Ok, a person if free, if that porson is responsible for theit own actions. When are you responsible for your own actions? When you are rewarded and punished according to ´(the results of) your actions.

As I've mentioned in a couple of other posts, the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelias being a Stoic accepted determinism. Once he punished a slave by beating him. The slave defended himself by saying that he had been determined to commit the offence. The emperor responded that he had been determined to beat the slave.

So this slave was made responsible for his own actions and was therefore free?


- FreezBee

 

[hiumble1]

sounds to me that what you are asking would be an Absolute Freedom where you are governed by no laws (i.e. not falling under a cause and effect scenario). to which we no of know such thing. it would be more correct to say we have relative freedom (without effect dependant upon the cause) you are not free to do anythinfg you wish, something is bound to impede you whether it is the law of gravity, or some other else. I remember when 911 happened many were talking big saying things that we must secure our freedom to which I thought, that cant happen.... you cant be secure and free at the same time you loose alittle of one in order to increase the other. In order to be more secure you give up some freedom, likewise in order to be more free you give up some security

 

[TeddyKGB]

No, "random" means "behaving statistically according to a uniform probability distribution". Well, usually it does

So not all uncaused events are random?

 

[levi501]

Determinism is quite compatible with the idea of holding people responsible for their actions as a society must protect itself and discourage unfavorable acts. It does however render the idea of revenge for no other purpose but revenge as cruel and irrational.

... And on another topic I see spirtual punishment as revenge.

 

[TScott]

Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose".

 

[bob135]

So this slave was made responsible for his own actions and was therefore free?

I don't think he has to be punished, as long as he is believed to be responsible for his actions, he is free. The other option would be to say that his action and punishment were inevitable, and the concepts of freedom and responsibility are useless.

sounds to me that what you are asking would be an Absolute Freedom where you are governed by no laws (i.e. not falling under a cause and effect scenario). to which we no of know such thing. it would be more correct to say we have relative freedom (without effect dependant upon the cause) you are not free to do anythinfg you wish, something is bound to impede you whether it is the law of gravity, or some other else.

How are relative freedom and absolute freedom different? Aren't effects always a function of cause, with the possible exception of a/the first cause?

 

[Jillkinseng]

 

[billwald]

Being free is a mental state. Anyone who can think "Screw you" is free.

 

[somasoma77]

Man is free to ignore the laws of nature as he can ignore the moral laws, but in both cases it will cause a decline or destruction of the body or mind. The body has no freedom from the material laws, as the mind finds no freedom from the moral laws. It is like a dog chained to a tree, we only have freedom within the limits of the leash. The real freedom is within pure consciousness in the moment. It is naturally all embracing, moving, blissful and unrestricted so the path to pure consciousness is freedom, a moment-to-moment responsibility and an intuitive communion with God. Freedom

 

[bob135]

Being free is a mental state. Anyone who can think "Screw you" is free.

That seems like another pretty good way of thinking of it, although I'm not sure if I would call rebellious children who say "screw you" free, since they are somewhat ignorant/inexperienced, which limits their freedom/responsibility.

Man is free to ignore the laws of nature as he can ignore the moral laws, but in both cases it will cause a decline or destruction of the body or mind. The body has no freedom from the material laws, as the mind finds no freedom from the moral laws. It is like a dog chained to a tree, we only have freedom within the limits of the leash. The real freedom is within pure consciousness in the moment. It is naturally all embracing, moving, blissful and unrestricted so the path to pure consciousness is freedom, a moment-to-moment responsibility and an intuitive communion with God. Freedom

Last time I checked, I couldn't disobey gravity, a law of nature. I'm not aware of any emperically verifiable moral laws, although I guess killing people might screw you up psychologically (a decline in the mind), but this wouldn't apply to all people, so I wouldn't really call it a law.

Where do you get the idea that the body and mind are distinctly separate entities? Is anything other than the brain needed to make decisions? If so, how does this ethereal entity interact with the brain? Why is it needed to explain decisions?

In what sense are we bound by moral laws? You have said earlier that disobeying them is harmful, but that doesn't make it impossible to disobey moral laws, it just makes it less desireable.

What is pure conciousness? Is there an impure conciousness as well? If so, what is that?

 

[Maxwell511]

I think freedom is the ability to exercise a right. For example I have the right to decide who I choose to represent me in government however due to ignorance or fear I may not be able to exercise this right and therefore I lack freedom. This lack of freedom is no different to someone that lives in a society where this right is legally surpressed.

 

[xAtheistx]

So not all uncaused events are random?

One could say that everything is caused. This is especially easy if one has a deity to blame for the causes, else one could blame fate or the like.

Even through science, one can argue that something is not entirely random. A throw of an unweighted dice (Yes, dice is plural. I don't care), for example. One could argue that the placement of the dice in your hand, and how hard you throw it, as well as certain outside factors (if it hits an object, or is otherwise interfered) will determine the result of your roll.

So if nothing is truly random, can we never be truly free?

Being free is a mental state. Anyone who can think "Screw you" is free.

I disagree. Anybody who can say "Screw you" without punishment is free.

Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose".

That's an interesting perspective, coming from an American. Your freedom of religion means you have nothing left to lose in the religious category?