Question about freedom

Affable

Again a bit abstract.

But let's say you have two choices.

1)To create the objectively more free society, where people, for no special reason, merely incidental, perceive themselves as less free.
2)To create an objectively less free society, but where the perception of freedom is much greater in people(again for incidental reason).

Which is the most ethical choice and why?

blorg

Who's the big yahuna in the sky deciding on what is objective then?

You might also consider that there are different types of freedom- this is a big issue if looking at issues of economic freedom etc.

What do you mean by freedom?

Affable

blorg wrote: »

Who's the big yahuna in the sky deciding on what is objective then?

It's no problem to make an assumption of objective freedom which encompasses all kinds of freedom to allow you to ponder the main thrust of the question.

Affable

My first thoughts are that it depends on the subconscious. When I said perceive I meant consciously perceive, but the degree of influence that subconscious perception of freedom(which it's reasonable to suggest in this case could be more linked to the 'objective' level of freedom than the conscious perception) has, would matter in determing how free people truly were.

Then of course it depends if them feeling free is the moral issue rather than them actually being free.

hhh123

the only real way to be free ,is to be free of goverment ,economy,purpose, culture, ego, and religon

blorg

Affable wrote: »

It's no problem to make an assumption of objective freedom which encompasses all kinds of freedom to allow you to ponder the main thrust of the question.

The issue is the freedom is a human concept and there are varying conceptions of freedom. The liberal concept of freedom is very different from the Marxist concept of freedom, to take just two examples. What is "objective freedom" given that philosophers don't agree on what "freedom" is?

brianthebard

hhh123 wrote: »

the only real way to be free ,is to be free of goverment ,economy,purpose, culture, ego, and religon

is that freedom or a rejection of cultural values?Are you free to continue normal life once these things are rejected?

Affable

blorg wrote: »

What is "objective freedom" given that philosophers don't agree on what "freedom" is?

I'm asking you to make an assumption to allow yourself to ponder the question. I should have stated that at the start. It doesn't have to be grounded in reality, that part of it, it's an abstraction. Just assume that there is an objective way to quantify overall freedom and one group is more free and one less.

Bryan Habana

Affable wrote: »

Again a bit abstract.

But let's say you have two choices.

1)To create the objectively more free society, where people, for no special reason, merely incidental, perceive themselves as less free.
2)To create an objectively less free society, but where the perception of freedom is much greater in people(again for incidental reason).

Which is the most ethical choice and why?

In that hypothetical situation I suppose I'd pick option 1. While being physically free but not feeling free is of little actual benefit to the individual I'm not sure I see anything technically unethical about it. Given the subjective nature of freedom perhaps it's their own fault for not feeling free?

To me, option 2 offers more 'potential' for being unethical. If you consider the case of the Austrian guy who locked up his daughter and had kids with her. Those kids probably felt free but that cellar was anything but. On a societal level feeling free in the absence of real freedom would also probably require some sort of brainwashing/mind manipulation by those in authority.

Therefore I pick the 1st option.

blorg

Affable wrote: »

My first thoughts are that it depends on the subconscious. When I said perceive I meant consciously perceive, but the degree of influence that subconscious perception of freedom(which it's reasonable to suggest in this case could be more linked to the 'objective' level of freedom than the conscious perception) has, would matter in determing how free people truly were.

Then of course it depends if them feeling free is the moral issue rather than them actually being free.

Your question isn't really about freedom at all then, it's about whether it is better for people to be objectively X in general or whether it is better for them to be less X (while perceiving themselves the opposite in each case.)

X could equal good, happy (arguably), just, correct about their understanding of reality, or any number of things.

hhh123

brianthebard wrote: »

is that freedom or a rejection of cultural values?Are you free to continue normal life once these things are rejected?

hell yeah you can still live a normal life, you just have less restrictions

Overheal

Im calling this one Candy Shop Complex, and Im going with number 2. Given an appropriate amount of time to make your decision in 2 situations you are presented with 100 varieties of candy (or choice) and in another situation you are presented with 10. 100 inevitably causes you to spend more time in deliberation before deciding on your freedom of choice, limiting you from doing other things - beyond enjoying the piece of candy its just one more thing to distract you from the near-infinite other things you could be doing with your time. With 10 choices you might spend a minute moaning about them not having your favorite brand but you will settle on something that will satisfy you. With that stress out of the way youre free to make a new array of choices.

The mind is free of 90% or more of the things it would otherwise have to consider if it were objectively free to make those choices. So long as the mind is offered a subset of choices - as long as there is Choice - the mind can be made complacent. Less choices less worry, more happiness. But there is choice, and that is freedom. Ethically I would place a higher value on true happiness than true freedom.

Frankie Lee

hhh123 wrote: »

the only real way to be free ,is to be free of goverment ,economy,purpose, culture, ego, and religon

Thats nihilism isn't it?

azezil

Bryan Habana wrote: »

In that hypothetical situation I suppose I'd pick option 1. While being physically free but not feeling free is of little actual benefit to the individual I'm not sure I see anything technically unethical about it. Given the subjective nature of freedom perhaps it's their own fault for not feeling free?

To me, option 2 offers more 'potential' for being unethical. If you consider the case of the Austrian guy who locked up his daughter and had kids with her. Those kids probably felt free but that cellar was anything but. On a societal level feeling free in the absence of real freedom would also probably require some sort of brainwashing/mind manipulation by those in authority.

Therefore I pick the 1st option.

To take your example of the kids who were kept in the cellar, was it not far more detrimental to their mental health to reveal the truth to them?

If one is happy in an environment with limited choice, is it really a good thing to be made aware that your choices are being restricted, and what then if freedom is thrust upon you? Can you adapt to this new unfamiliar environment, or would it be so overwhelming that you simply not be able to function?

I would think that it would be better to live out my life preceiving that I am free rather than to be free.

I choose option 2.

Bryan Habana

azezil wrote: »

To take your example of the kids who were kept in the cellar, was it not far more detrimental to their mental health to reveal the truth to them?

If one is happy in an environment with limited choice, is it really a good thing to be made aware that your choices are being restricted, and what then if freedom is thrust upon you? Can you adapt to this new unfamiliar environment, or would it be so overwhelming that you simply not be able to function?

I would think that it would be better to live out my life preceiving that I am free rather than to be free.

I choose option 2.

It's a good point. If it were only a question of happiness I'd choose the same option as you. Afterall having too much freedom and choice but not knowing it is of little personal use. But if you look at the causes of those 2 scenarios which one is more unethical?

Looking at it again I feel the one with restricted freedom/greater perception of freedom has more 'potential' to be unethical. It implies that the restricted freedom is caused by some greater authority. But what gives that authority the right to play God with someone else's life? Or to manipulate their emotions, brainwash their thoughts or remove all elements of a normal reality? The end result may not be so bad but the means to get it is unethical in my book.

Having too much freedom but not perceiving it is far from a state of happiness. But there are also cases where it can be just as unethical. (Imagine dumping someone in the middle of the dessert and leaving them there against their will. You've reduced their ability to live even though you've given them as much 'freedom' to do as they want).

So, overall I don't think there is an answer as such.

P.C.

Don't forget - there are two sides to freedom:

Positive and Negative.

Most people only want the positive freedom, and pretend that the negative freedom does not exisit.

Ie. freedom from govenments, society, rules, etc. - that is positive freedom. But then there are no rules, and noone to enforce rules, so then it is ok to murder someone - negative freedom.

Your boss says to you - I am giving you the freedom to lie in bed all day tomorrow, and every day (Positive). You are fired (Negative).

Therefore for me it would be option one. You take the good with the bad.

eunified61

Affable wrote: »

Again a bit abstract.

But let's say you have two choices.

1)To create the objectively more free society, where people, for no special reason, merely incidental, perceive themselves as less free.
2)To create an objectively less free society, but where the perception of freedom is much greater in people(again for incidental reason).

Which is the most ethical choice and why?

not really a philosopher (jcb driver)but I'll have a go . Not sure what ethics I'm following but I'd say following modern ethics where the feelgood thing is important definitely number 2

dissident

The question is like asking if you would rather live in a country were you could have complete freedom of thought but had to act a certain way, or in a country were you could act however you wanted but had think a certain way. I'd argue that both would be totalitarian.

ChocolateSauce

I do not think either is moral. To create something like that would deprive people of freedom either way-the freedom to make their own destiny.