On Responsible Freedom

Imagine that you were in a banquet and there's a lot of food—freaking plenty, delicious and immense. Since you're a visitor in such a gathering and you are very welcomed by the generous host, you have the freedom to eat whatever you want--no limits, no restrictions. Then, as told to, you eat, you munch, you devour almost everything—cake, leche flan, adobo, and even innocent fruits have not escaped. You go tables to tables to taste and to leave your devastating mark. Finally, you say to yourself, “This is freedom!” 

However, later that time, you notice that your tummy is not reacting well to what you have just done. You overwhelmingly ate and such variety of foods cannot be contained by your small corporeal belly.  You become dizzy. You become sweaty. You want to excrete. You want to sit down. You don't know exactly what to feel. You say to yourself afterward, “I don't know if this is freedom still.” 

Freedom is one of the perennial themes in history. Across generations, people covet freedom, starting from Mahatma Gandhi to Nelson Mandela to Aung San Suu Kyi to Martin Luther King. However, what is freedom? Intuitively, we can define freedom as the capacity to do something without the externally imposed restraints; basically, no person or force can prevent you to think, speak or do the thing you desire.  

For example, there is an evil guy who pinpoints a gun on your head and forces you to kill this unknown man. If you won't do that, the evil guy would kill you and your loved ones. In that scenario, you don't have freedom evidently. You're strongly coerce by an external agent, unless you are an immoral psychotic and fervently loves killing anybody. But let's just assume that you are a normal person with a healthy personality, and you don’t have any disorder of any kind, then you are not free in such case. 

In any democratic country, freedom plays an essential role you; it is even enshrined in constitutions. However, if we rely solely on the intuitive definition of freedom that we just had a while ago then that would lean forward anarchy, most especially if one wants to do whatever he wants selfishly, without even taking into account moral consideration or consequences. Therefore, we can say that freedom itself cannot be an ingredient of a healthy and flourishing society. In fact, Isaiah Berlin, a philosopher, calls such definition as negative freedom. He says it is negative because we just regard ourselves in making actions; we do not think about their consequences anymore. We do not think about the consequences to others and to ourselves—all have the same freedom as us.  

For example, you want to quit working just because you say you’re a free person, but you do not think about anymore the consequences—your family, your future, etc. You may start to sniff drugs. You say to yourself because “I'm a free person.” What is the compromise? How about your health? Defining freedom in such a manner amplifies our very destructive nature. That definition of freedom is ignorant of rules and consequences. In short, it is ignorant of responsibility. 

Now, my appeal is we should treat freedom with responsibility. Let’s see them as a married couple in which “the two has become one.” Indeed, the two should never be separated from one another because freedom without responsibility leads to chaos, whereas responsibility without freedom drives to oppression. To clarify, freedom is a beautiful concept—it reinforces the autonomy within the individual. It makes us not robotic. Though before we truly seize the advantages brought forth by freedom, it is moral and ethical that we become responsible through educating and regulating ourselves. 

A concrete example of this is the compulsory basic education. Why do young people need to study? Can they just they just leave if they’re free? Technically, they can do that. But if they do that, they should its repercussions and be responsible for them. One of the reasons why they undertake studies is to be freer. If they want to be free and to make rational choices, then they must equip themselves with the necessary knowledge and skills to make reasonable decisions. Through that, they can be empowered to make decisions that are enslaving them. 

Steven Pinker, a psychologist, contends that we are living in the most peaceful era in history in comparison to the preceding generations. Hence, we reap many benefits—one of which is the significant increase on the things we are free to do. We are freer compared to those who lived before us. Responsible freedom, therefore, serves as a guiding light in this world full of choices. Many can do whatever they want, but it is fitting to be judicious to the endeavors we undertake, and we regard rules and consequences.  

Isaiah Berlin puts forward positive freedom which is a type of freedom that regards rules, consequences, and other people. That is similar to responsible freedom. Since we live in an interdependent society, it is appropriate that we take into consideration others’ freedom to sustain harmonious relationships and communities. It also has been a way to promote peace and orderliness. Misusing freedom can disrespect and, to a severe extent, can hurt people. It has terrible societal and interpersonal sanctions as well. Let us bear in mind that our freedom cannot be a license to stomp on another’s freedom. No one has the right to do that.