Today's discussion in class was abstract in our attempts to define "freedom" and to distinguish it from a "right". Freedom is a very loose term and has been applied to all kinds of media and political agendas. In the article about positive and negative freedom, there is an example of how one can be free in one way but totally unfree in another. It talks about a person who smokes who is trying to drive somewhere. He/she has negative freedom because there are no "obstacles, barriers, or constraints" that prevent the person from getting to where they want to go. He/she does not have positive freedom, as in the "presence of...control". The nicotine in the tobacco makes the person's body feel the need for that drug. When the smoker drives to the tobacconist, they are free in that nobody forced him/her to go there, but "unfree" because they can't control their physical need for the substance. While these definitions are still a bit blurry to me, this example helps to clarify what constitutes a positive or negative freedom, according to the article.
Having freedom doesn't guarantee happiness, just the range or options for how to live one's life. One's decisions and actions will determine the overall worth or value of life.
At the end of class the idea of freedom verses a right was brought up. Sometimes the ideas are used interchangeably, but they are very different. One First Amendment Right is the "Freedom of Speech". You have the right to express yourself as you wish. You also have the freedom to choose whether or not to express yourself. Along with that is the freedom to listen or not. To speak one needs a listener, or the words are nothing but noise. To decide to not listen seems to discredit the freedom of speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment