2006-12-20 19:39:20 · 12 answers · asked by michael p 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You raise a very good point. The problem with mankind is that we have a tendency to think, speak and act is if the world is made of "absolutes". When in reality the world is made up of many shades of grey. Absolute freedom does not and cannot exist. For example say I want to own a slave, well if I am free to do whatever I want then it is OK, right? Wrong because in order to exercise my free will I must rob another human being of theirs therefore absolute freedom cannot exist.
However, freedom with reasonable limitations can exist. Many people quote the First Amendment as proof that in this country we have freedom of speech. What they do not realize is that it comes with limitations as in the case with Gag Orders, National Security, hate speech etc.
They way I like to think of it is to say that we are free to the point that our actions do not infringe on the rights of other. For example, I have the right to smoke if I want to, but I should not have the right to smoke in a in-closed public area where you are forced to breathe my second hand smoke. I should smoke in the privacy of my own home or out doors.
2006-12-21 03:42:06 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right now I'm choosing between:
1) The ability to make a choice; or
2) The act of choosing.
Almost everybody has free will, which includes the freedom not to make a choice. But if you leave your choices to others (i.e. other opinions, chance, god) are you truly free, or aren't you just driftwood?
People use either 1 or 2 above whenever they mention freedom. While we can use the same word to refer to either idea, they are not even the slightest the same.
2006-12-21 05:36:23 · answer #2 · answered by ragdefender 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now don't quote me, because my neighborhood thinks I'm a busybody anyway, but throwing your football into my yard or off of my son's car is NOT a freedom that Bill Clinton gave you. When that Bush kid got into office the world became free-er but those A-rabs won't sit down and shut up like we told them. Nonetheless, I'll vote for whoever has the whitest teeth,even if they are *****.
2006-12-21 03:54:51 · answer #3 · answered by harriet.furtaco 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One way to define freedom is......
the thought, the intent, the speech and the action can all be the same without any obstruction from any quarters whether animate or inanimate, internal or external.
2006-12-21 03:45:09 · answer #4 · answered by small 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To be able to do what one wants, without harming others. The founders thought it hinged on self control of Life, Liberty and Property.
"Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man."
Frederick Bastiat
2006-12-21 03:46:06 · answer #5 · answered by dem_dogs 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without restraint
2006-12-21 03:50:35 · answer #6 · answered by Red Robin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom is free of the "need" to be free.....
your sister,
Ginger
2006-12-21 03:56:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it means having a right to anything without anyone asking why you are doing it or giving an explanation why you are doing that
2006-12-21 03:55:56 · answer #8 · answered by aint I beautiful 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No strings attached
2006-12-21 03:59:26 · answer #9 · answered by blueyes 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Less constraint.
2006-12-21 03:57:32 · answer #10 · answered by Cornelius 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋