Freedom today is a term that many take for granted, and the implications that this has go far beyond our ability to gauge our own actions' validity in relation to greater society. We have a freedom to want (desire), a freedom to do, a freedom pursue our own goals, but how we realize these freedoms and conceive of them in the first place is dictated by forces outside of ourselves. Primarily we think of laws that put into action a supposed limit on these freedoms, but they have come to be expected and our conception of freedom is structured around them. This is a changing process that is altered by the passage of time, by new social relations among humans and our interpretation of these social relations, at least the ones that we are able to see, as undoubtedly there will always be relations that go by undetected or misconstrued by dominating mindsets of the moment.
When looking at this view of freedom, it is important to consider all the factors that may affect our view and analysis of it. If look at the will of the individual itself, it is what the individual wants that seems to dictate what his freedom should inherently be, but it is impossible to look at individuals isolated, as individuals are social beings. We can also examine the will of the State that the individuals exist within, and how this will and freedom of will serves the purposes and freedoms of the individuals residing within. It is individuals within society that we must examine in order to get towards an idea of freedom that is to serve any purpose, as it is ultimately the society that dictates what individuals' movement within the society will be. These are all things that have been considered by Immanuel Kant. Kant's investigations of the individual within society bring up the issues of universal law, morality, and equality all of which are inherently linked to freedom.
Firstly, when looking at the will of the individual in relation to freedom, it is necessary to examine his impulses and his capriciousness and how they relate to his supposed freedom. Would it not be reasonable for freedom to be defined as doing most anything that you want, any whim or fleeting desire? Even going so far as to say that you have the freedom to any activity that is of detriment to yourself? This idea of freedom has its shortcomings when the implications of the actions are examined more closely, however. The individual who wishes to follow through on every whim and desire undoubtedly looks back at himself in past events, and on particular occasions, wishes there had a second chance in order to truly redeem himself and go against the immediate impulses, as the consequences of the actions have come back in a form of regret; the consumer becoming dissatisfied with a purchase and experiencing "buyer's remorse." The true path of "good" is certainly recognized universally, but it is an individual's ability to differentiate between the immediate benefits of going against this true "good", and the projected advantages of doing what they would hope all others would do, that truly muddles the idea of a freedom. According to Kant, "There is no one... who, when presented with examples of honesty of purpose, of steadfastness in following good maxims, and of sympathy and general benevolence... does not wish that he might also possess these qualities. Yet he cannot attain these in himself only because of his inclinations and impulses; but at the same time he wishes to be free from such inclinations which are a burden to him." (55) So freedom no longer becomes an ability to go off any whim and fancy, but to recognize the truly moral strings of decisions, and to strive towards a lifestyle that may benefit him in the long run, as well as those others benefiting from his decisions. Freedom is not simply an ability to decide between choices, but it is an ability to become an individual whose decisions are already made for him (through internal means), the deliberations between right and wrong are non-existent. Truly it is not a static process, but a linear one, encompassing time and space.
Now, how does a society make this a universally understood task, not just the undertaking of a few like-minded "noble" individuals? First, there must be an elimination of the belief that it is a noble cause to pursue; rather it is a necessary task, pursuable by everyone, a common pursuit. The understanding of the golden rule is really the most basic understanding of this idea, "treat others as you would have them treat yourself." The metaphysics of this equation, however, must be investigated in order for the understanding to go beyond that of simple kindergarten direction. Kant specifically targets this concept in outlining a "universal law". Many consider the laws that we legislate and the standards that we form and practice are what eventually form our consciousness and moral compass, when it is the reverse process that should be true; it should be our understanding of what is right and beneficial for us and others that should be the cause for legislation through our governing bodies. It is then that only universal will can be formed into law.
In the modern society with its relations to universal law, I think of the idea of competition, stemming from that competition between manufacturers all the way down to the workers and every other avenue of life, and its contradictions to the concept of universal will. In a society of competition, those competing are looking out for what is best for their own self, and in fact, actually look to be
better than those with whom they are competing. When this mindset is willed universally, it runs into its own contradictions - if you will your own company, your own
self to be better than all others, you also must be able to wish all others to be better than
yourself. It becomes a game of a cat chasing its own tale, and it is much the same as the example Kant outlines, in that willing a lie to become universal law it becomes impossible to differentiate between what is true and a lie, and your lying loses its original intention. You can no longer temporarily benefit from the lie just the same as no one else can benefit from you, and promises can no longer be made, thus the maxim to will a lie into universal law destroys itself. (Kant, 15) It is this contradiction, I believe, that is the most graspable for the modern mind to realize all the contradictions that underlie our modern society.
This particular conception of competition must be abandoned in order to overcome these contradictions, and freedom must take on the meaning of betterment of the self, not in comparison to those surrounding individuals. For when the advancement of a man's qualities becomes for his own being, and is thus in turn willed universally, its benefits become immediately apparent. The individual can say to those around him, "I will work on improving my own being if you are to do the same." It will also become universally apparent to help one another in attaining this betterment, for when asked for help, the universal law would be to help this other person, just as this would be what one would want for himself, assistance in improving. The betterment of society is then a cohesive communal undertaking, rather than bursts of improvements made when one breakthrough overreaches another.
This also helps to form cohesion between the will of the individual and the will of the State. When the universal will becomes that of the betterment of people, a State’s will that follows the same agenda will intrinsically foster individuals that work towards an improvement of their selves and their state. People will obtain equality in the State’s eyes and in the eyes of their peers.
-Work Cited-
Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Third Edition. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett, 1993. Print.
