Freedom in the history of the individual has had a whole repertoire of fighters and defenders as well as enemies and detractors. It has been a concept that has generated multiple philosophical debates in the academic world, and, in addition, it has been considered a human principle for which many have even given their own lives. The relevance of freedom being of such magnitude, I proceed to approach it from the notion of individual freedom in order to justify it as an ethical foundation in people's lives. And I approach it from this angle because I understand that individual freedom in the human being is the foundation on which the whole building of Freedom rests, whose walls contain in its interior other important and fundamental freedoms such as religious, economic, political, etc. In addition, I will delve into the costs of the denial of freedom based on the following question: What is at stake if freedom does not exist?
To begin by defining the notion of individual freedom that I have proposed to defend, I must say that individual freedom is the factual condition that individuals have to realize their life project without the interference and meddling of third parties and whose expression cannot infringe or transgress the life of others. But what do I mean when I mention “factual condition”? By this I mean that freedom is a condition already given in people's lives, that is, we are born free, and part of our inevitable limits is to exercise our freedom. This view of freedom is known as a compatibilist view. However, there are those who believe that the world is determined and that everything is already written, so they are motivated to defend a deterministic vision. Determinism is a philosophical current which holds that all events, including human actions, are determined by prior causes and, therefore, nothing happens spontaneously or randomly. According to this perspective, human freedom is an illusion because all our actions are conditioned by factors such as genetics, environment, or immutable natural laws. Ancient and modern thinkers or scientists such as Democritus (atomistic determinism), Thomas Hobbes (materialistic determinism), Karl Marx (historical materialism), Benjamin Libet (conscious veto), among others, have believed that the life of human beings is previously oriented and conditioned without any qualms.
Indeed, individual freedom is the source of the ethics that shape social relations. Or can we hold an individual who has committed a crime - such as murder - morally responsible and punish him without presupposing that his actions were free and voluntary? Can we blame people for their actions if they are already materially conditioned and predestined? How do we define the goodness/evilness dyad if people have no authority over their actions? The answer is that individual freedom is a necessary condition for being able to judge the behavior of others. If this freedom did not exist, we would not be able to distinguish right from wrong, we would not be able to blame wrongdoing, and we would not be able to correct social behavior. In short, if individual freedom did not exist, ethics, defined as the branch of philosophy that studies the moral principles and values that guide human behavior, would not exist either.
If we ask the question: What would be at stake if freedom did not exist? then not only would ethics be undermined, but some human impulses related to desire and need would also disappear. For if we lived in a deterministic world in which everything is already written and materially pre-established, people's desires and needs would be quantifiable and finite, which we know to be impossible. On the other hand, under the example of eliminating individual freedom from our human existence, I conclude that there are five drives of human desire which are: 1) the drive for power, 2) the drive for achievement or self-improvement, 3) the drive for curiosity, 4) the drive for expressive creativity and 5) the drive for compassion or altruism which are complicatedly affected equally if freedom did not exist. In short, the drive for power is meaningless in a world where actions are already predetermined, for trying to rule and influence others would be a waste of time because they are already decided, and their thinking cannot be changed. The impulse to surpass oneself and execute an achievement has no place in a world where the successful are already predestined to win. The drive for curiosity - and along with it knowledge - has no place in a world where wanting to know or understand something new is a product of the previous events that condition it; which means that it is no longer a personal autonomy that motivates you to investigate but a subordinate channeling that has brought you there. Moreover, the impulse of creativity that expresses innovative ideas is not worthwhile if they cannot compete with each other, since there is no point in creating if people do not have the ability to make alternative choices. Finally, the impulse of compassion or altruism cannot be carried out in a deterministic society since it implies acting for the good of others in a voluntary and disinterested manner. Therefore, with determinism we cannot decide voluntarily because we are already conditioned to act in a certain way and under this factor it would not be cooperation but teamwork.
Some might question why I used the concept of Individual Freedom and not precisely that of Free Will to address this issue. Although both concepts are related, the difference is that the former is based on the free actions of individuals while the latter focuses on the decision-making capacity of the actors. However, for me acting without deciding is irrational and deciding without acting is cowardice. For this reason, I understand that the term that concretizes the actions resulting from their free decisions in a society is individual freedom. Finally, it is demonstrated that without freedom there is no moral responsibility, no merit and no cooperation. Without freedom there is no meaning.
Ricardo Rivera Borrero holds a Bachelor's degree in political science and law from the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico and a Master's degree in Philosophy from the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
