any freedom?

Question

do u think it is good to have the freedom to do anything as long as it is not against the law? think deep before answering please no on the top of the head answers...

Answer 1

Yes is the answer.
But you appear to be using the word Law in three senses.

One is a "law" of science; meaning if you consider space-time to be the real universe, and you belong in it. then the first "law" of your philosophy and science will have to be: heck what you think you know back against reality, because if it doesn't work it's a bad idea, nor matter how hard you try to do it.
The second meaning of law here is;
"Any dictate as to what you have to do or refrain from doing, say you believe or don't believe, accept as payment or agree to pay in order to avoid being punished by collectivizing force users."
The third meaning is, "Laws punish only those who do not obey scientific regulations as volition individuals interacting within marketplaces of defined lives with equally free other selves when they fail to claim their "rights" by first watching out for others non-negligently
and therefore collectivizing their rights (committing a crime).

As to your question, with these definitions in place, it becomes easy to answer.

1. Under number one, you have the physical freedom to "do anything" even if there's normative Constitution, no marketplace of societally connected lives; but you do not have the mental freedom to ignore the stricture: you're supposed to do what works, not what you feel like doing---because otherwise nothing you do will ever be good enough.
2. Under number two, the answer would be "no", because Law here is defined as the collective's fantasized life good required by an infallible leader to be obeyed at all times--making you unfree in theory to do anything without express permission.
3.Under the third case, the answer to the question would be "absolutely "yes". the societal marketplace of inter-contracting individuals is responsible for conceiving, evaluating, performing, monitoring and profiting from selfishly volitional acts--but, as equals, they must obey scientist drawn regulation in the MANNER of claiming their rights, watching out non-negligently for others' rights
during the period they claim the right to act, and then still trying to do the moral 9realistic) ethical (non-collectivist) right thing in order to obey the prime Law of reality: if the space-time universe is real, you cannot fake reality o any way and expect positive results, to the extent of your failure and postmodernistic denial of the reality of Reality.

Answer 2

sorry if i am wrong but i have interpreted your question as,

Are all lawful actions Good?

I do not feel that to be true.

if i may give my reasons and examples for my decision.

firstly law itself is modified from experience it does not foresee all possible actions, perhaps the only laws of a particular political government that are not based on experience within that government are those set in the constitution of that government.
(the above is not a definition just an opinion of law)

secondly there are times where a law may contain a flaw usually we call them "loopholes" that actually allow what we would consider wrong to be lawful.
(i am not certain if the above is academically correct)

i would now like to give an example of a major lawful thing that i would not consider Good.

imagine you spent $40,000 on a product X.
a week later you sell product X for $50,000

in effect the work involved in the buying and selling was almost effortless and yet $10,000 was "earned"
whereas a man(both sexes) who had worked very hard for a week only earned lets say $1,000

i do understand that you have to take such things as the
"risk involved" however ultimately those that know how to "cheat the system" make more earnings than they deserve as opposed to the man who worked.

in effect i feel that this results in each man not getting what he actually "deserves" for his work

Answer 3

But you already do have that freedom. No law can dictate what you are free to do. Law only dictates the cost of doing things against the wishes of others. For example, if I were to desire to disrobe and walk in public, I can do that. However, there being a law against it, I would pay the price for exercising my freedom.

Answer 4

None of us have the real freedom to do anything. We are confined to the laws of physics, which show less mercy upon us than any autoritarian rule given by the commonwealth.

Answer 5

This is similar to the study of ethics.

Just because it is not illegal, doesn't not necessarily mean that it is okay, acceptable, ethical or moral to do so.

I believe that people must choose their or ethical codes to live by and in turn, also deal with the consequences of those choices.

However, I disagree that others should have any say in how I decide to live my life.

Answer 6

To do ANYTHING? No--it's unethical to do those things that would prevent others from enjoying their own freedoms.

Moreover, just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. That's why we acknowledge civil disobedience.

Answer 7

i do believe it is a good idea just as long as the effects of your actions does not cause physical or psychological harm to another human being. and for the record I do not feel that expressing verbally that may or may not be considered offensive is harmful to anything besides someones pride.

Answer 8

Freedom... I value only one... based on laws... making me free from evil captivity... Freedom not letting me to kneel before evil... I kneel only before true God that made me free by obligation to laws, to laws like my freedom...

Answer 9

Freedom means you make your choices.

Answer 10

You have ask a profound Question that I must do some in depth thinking about.