For most of us, college marks the transition from the ordered, rule-based world of childhood to the unstructured, self-determined world of adulthood. Freedom is the defining aspect of adulthood, thus an understanding of freedom itself is of prime importance for anyone living in the land of the free.
Personally, I strongly believe that freedom is a gift from God. We have free will and the ability to make moral choices, and he expects us-all of us-to do so, and in his eyes, we are all valued. Thus, for me, allowing everyone maximum freedom of action is a moral necessity. Even without appealing to God, though, promoting freedom is clearly the driving purpose of our civil society.
As the nation’s founders said, the idea that everyone is created equal is self-evident. Thus, no person can claim authoritatively that her morality is right and all others are wrong. There will always be disagreement on moral and immoral behavior since no two people have the same viewpoint or the same morality. Even two people with similar backgrounds-same church, clubs, political party, etc.-will find that they disagree on some issue of right and wrong.
Furthermore, only a meglomaniac will claim the God-like perfection that justifies imposing his morality on all others. Even with some sort of divine inspiration, a rational person will admit his own fallibility.
People certainly have conflicting differences in morality, yet each of us feels that his morality is the right one. Moreover, we hold individuals responsible for their actions-acknowledging that they are moral agents. That is, they have the ability to know right from wrong. Since no one’s viewpoint is practically superior to anybody else’s, imposing Jane’s rules on Jack arbitrarily denies the latter’s humanity. Since his viewpoint is suppressed, he is treated as less than human. Yet society clearly needs some rules, such as “murder is wrong.” Perhaps, then, we as a society can adopt the viewpoint shared by the majority of the society-if we can’t satisfy most people.
At least three problems arise with this strategy. First, there is no guarantee that there is a majority view. While Americans clearly have some beliefs shared by the majority-God exists, murder is wrong and the like-many issues-how to deal with poverty and homelessness, for instance-do not have a majority opinion to fall back on.
Second, even if two people seem to agree on an issue, their actual opinions may have been muddled in their expressions. While Lee may believe that stealing for food is justified if one is starving, he might still vote for a law that states “stealing is illegal,” thus universally banning stealing, even if it is sometimes morally right. Also, two people may use the same words and not realize they have different meanings to each.
Third, even if a majority opinion can be found, it may not be right. Nazi Germany is the classic example of a democratically elected government that was clearly evil. Democracy without the guarantee of freedom simply guarantees the ability of the majority to dehumanize and suppress the majority. And when the former hates the latter, it can easily lead to oppression, slavery and genocide.
The best solution is to ensure that people as a whole have the maximum ability to act morally. That is, what is right and wrong is left up to each individual. Since people’s views on morality vary so greatly, it seems that any set of rules will necessarily deny someone the ability to pursue what he believes is right.
At the same time, the complete absence of any sort of rules gives people the abilities to prevent others from acting morally-doing what they believe is right-through violent coercion. Any legitimate rule imposed on a society seeks to maximize the freedom, the ability to do what she believes is right, of each individual in that society. For instance, “murder is illegal” is a legitimate law because killing someone necessarily destroys his ability to act morally. Whereas a law banning usage of the word “ass” on the radio does not increase anyone’s ability to take moral actions and is not a legitimate law.
America’s government is built on similar concepts. The Preamble to the Constitution states that the government exists to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Any rule or law passed in the United States should be passed for the purpose of fulfilling this objective.
Sometimes it’s not always clear whether a law will help or harm freedom. There are grey areas. To deal with this conundrum, we have an active democratic government that has the ability to pass new laws and revoke old ones.
As responsible adults, we all have a duty to see that the rules we create actually improve our society-that is, they increase freedom. We must avoid dangerous mistakes such as “safety over freedom.” While banning actions that definitely harm others is legitimate, banning actions because they might later be used to do harm others is not.
Almost always, laws that control actions to prevent crimes make two mistakes. They assume that the illusion of safety is the same as being safe, and they assume paradoxically that someone who would commit the crime of murder would obey some other law, such as a gun control law.
For example, a law banning the use of backpacks in schools. Such a law makes the ludicrous assumption that an intent criminal would not think to hide a weapon in clothing, books or simply disguise it as something else. It sacrifices a freedom-albeit a seemingly small one-for nothing but the illusion of safety. Imposing such a rule on adults is completely unacceptable, as it pretends to claim some moral authority over their actions.
We live in the most free society the world has ever seen. Because it’s so successful, we might fail to see the necessity of liberty. It might seem less important than the feeling, the illusion, of safety or the social veneer of “polite talk.” Without liberty, that is not a choice we get to make any longer. Without freedom we are denied our birthright and our ability to make decisions for ourselves. Without freedom, we can never be adults.