‘FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY AND ETHICS’
CAERS SUBSTACK ARTICLE #7
‘Freedom’ is a very interesting concept, and like the word ‘love’, it can be difficult to define, and for that reason we may not all share the same perspective on its meaning. Does it mean that we can do whatever we please, or can we still consider ourselves to be ‘free’ even if there are boundaries or limitations on what we can do?
For example, there are two kinds of freedom: freedom from external forces and freedom from internal forces. Often the external ones are the first to come to mind, and are the ones we most associate with ‘being free’. However, many if not most spiritual traditions would argue that our freedom is most hindered by our internal forces, not external ones. How ‘free’ is the person battling an addiction? Or the person suffering from severe anxiety or schizophrenia? How ‘free’ does the person dying of cancer feel?
It can be quite enlightening to ask ourselves: are we more limited by the external constraints on our freedom or the internal ones? How often do our own greed, impatience or lack of self- discipline, for example, limit us more than societal rules? Even more challenging is the question: would I prefer a life with many external constraints but few internal ones, or the other way around?
To some degree, the external rules placed on us in a democracy are like a back-up plan for when our internal regulatory powers fail us. Knowing that we might be charged with shoplifting, we might find it easier to resist stealing that object we have wanted for so long. Aware that police may fine us for speeding, we may be more likely to follow the suggested and prudent speed limit in a residential neighbourhood. Some might be more compelled to resist punching their annoying boss given the likelihood of being charged with assault.
It would be nice to think that our internal moral compass will never steer us wrong and that we will always follow it, but that doesn’t seem to be the nature of humans. We start our lives as highly narcissistic infants, content to have the universe focus on us exclusively, and it can take a lifetime to outgrow that self-centredness, to see the universe from the perspective of those around us. That is where the study of ethics can be helpful: helping us to develop morally justifiable guidelines that help us outgrow the narcissism that can impinge on the rights of others.
For that reason, the rationale for democracy is that by having all citizens, directly or indirectly through representation, help set reasonable rules for human conduct that we will actually have more freedom, not less, despite having boundaries. As we have spoken of in earlier articles, these boundaries are supposed to be based on a fair balancing of the rights and obligations of each individual with those of the collective.
In other words, freedom from external forces can never be absolute even in a democracy. It is important that we constantly strive to improve this balance, but we must always remember that at times the greatest limitations on our freedoms, and happiness, may reside more in the limitations inherent in our own internal constraints, than those outside of us.
How well have we done this during the pandemic? Has there been a fair balancing of the rights and obligation of the collective with those of each member of the collective? One of the biggest challenges in ethics is holding ourselves to the same standard to which we hold one another. How have we done with that during the pandemic? Have we treated others the way we would like to be treated? Or have we had different standards for ‘us’ and ‘them’?
We’ll explore various aspects of this issue in our next articles on ‘moralizing’ and ‘corruption’.
J. Barry Engelhardt MD (retired) MHSc (bioethics)
CAERS Health Intake Facilitator
If we truly acted responsibly, we could have complete freedom up to the point where our actions begin to adversely affect another. At that point, we have to weigh consequences and relative harms and benefits. I have absolute freedom to swing my arm, as long as it doesn't hit your face.
I seriously question some of the mandates during the Covid epidemic. I'm not convinced of the efficacy of masks, and speaking for myself, I can't see when wearing one because it fogs my glasses and I can barely breathe. While those restrictions were in place, I avoided going anywhere because of the necessity for masks rather than concern for getting Covid. I prefer solitude for the most part anyway, so that aspect wasn't a hardship for me, but it grated to know if I did want to go anywhere, I had to go blind and breathless.
I've also seen two other types of freedom described: 'freedom from', and 'freedom to'.
Freedom from oppression, exploitation, abuse, etc.
Freedom to work, travel, pursue activities that provide personal satisfaction such as music, writing, speaking, dancing, etc.