Freedom to; freedom from
I do not recall when or under what circumstances I was challenged to consider the difference between the terms freedom to and freedom from. My memory tells me it was in an undergraduate political philosophy class. This was in the sixties when many of us were adamant about asserting our freedom to – freedom to oppose the Vietnam war, question the universities and other institutions about their investments in companies which treated employees cruelly, have sex with whom we pleased and engage in other activities which ignored the teaching of parents and other adults. Often we engaged in these freedoms without questioning our own self-righteousness or the effect of our behavior on others. We also often brought with us the same racist, sexist, homophobic behavior which we might have been protesting.
It seems we were very focused on the freedom to while ignoring the issues of freedom from. Our concept of freedom to was focused on the freedoms for the individual. Although we were often focused on how the behavior of our country and the institutions with which we were associated affected others, we did not always consider how our freedoms affected each other or people outside of our group.
The question of freedom has frequently been in the forefront of economic, political and religious dialogue in this country; perhaps never more so than in recent years. Most recently the questions of freedom from and freedom to have once again come to the forefront of our thinking.
Since the visit of Covid-19 began the question of what freedoms should be curtailed for the individuals so that there may be long term freedom of the majority to be healthy and to live has been passionately debated. Some assert that all should have maximum freedom from potential infection. Some assert that the freedom to salvage their business and to freely move about trumps the rights to be free from potential infection. The President of these United States has just this week decided that the freedom to have access to meat trumps the rights of employees of the meat packing plants to be safe from infection. It would seem the freedom to eat meat, even though there are other sources of protein, is more important than the freedom of employees of meat packing plants to be free from infection.
Often freedoms of individuals collide. In my professional life this is evident in the laws we have enacted to protect the privacy of the individuals; often at the expense of the fact that people live in family systems. Even if one is not physically living with family members the freedom to privacy may ignore how individual decisions affect other family members.
The gun rights laws in this country seem too often focus on the freedom to own and carry a gun no matter how it affects the right to be free from the potential irrational behavior of the person with a gun.
In this and many other countries the questions of freedom to and freedom from are clashing with each other. Communities have to consider the freedoms of individuals, businesses, children, adults, governments and many other entities. We all want to be free from potential infection but many are willing to risk being infected so as to enjoy the freedom to operate our business; just to be able to eat at a restaurant or get our hair done.
As with most important ethical questions there are no easy answers. We do, however, have the option of considering how freedom to affects freedom from; for ourselves, our families and every other person at every level of community.
Written April 29, 2020
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
I do not recall when or under what circumstances I was challenged to consider the difference between the terms freedom to and freedom from. My memory tells me it was in an undergraduate political philosophy class. This was in the sixties when many of us were adamant about asserting our freedom to – freedom to oppose the Vietnam war, question the universities and other institutions about their investments in companies which treated employees cruelly, have sex with whom we pleased and engage in other activities which ignored the teaching of parents and other adults. Often we engaged in these freedoms without questioning our own self-righteousness or the effect of our behavior on others. We also often brought with us the same racist, sexist, homophobic behavior which we might have been protesting.
It seems we were very focused on the freedom to while ignoring the issues of freedom from. Our concept of freedom to was focused on the freedoms for the individual. Although we were often focused on how the behavior of our country and the institutions with which we were associated affected others, we did not always consider how our freedoms affected each other or people outside of our group.
The question of freedom has frequently been in the forefront of economic, political and religious dialogue in this country; perhaps never more so than in recent years. Most recently the questions of freedom from and freedom to have once again come to the forefront of our thinking.
Since the visit of Covid-19 began the question of what freedoms should be curtailed for the individuals so that there may be long term freedom of the majority to be healthy and to live has been passionately debated. Some assert that all should have maximum freedom from potential infection. Some assert that the freedom to salvage their business and to freely move about trumps the rights to be free from potential infection. The President of these United States has just this week decided that the freedom to have access to meat trumps the rights of employees of the meat packing plants to be safe from infection. It would seem the freedom to eat meat, even though there are other sources of protein, is more important than the freedom of employees of meat packing plants to be free from infection.
Often freedoms of individuals collide. In my professional life this is evident in the laws we have enacted to protect the privacy of the individuals; often at the expense of the fact that people live in family systems. Even if one is not physically living with family members the freedom to privacy may ignore how individual decisions affect other family members.
The gun rights laws in this country seem too often focus on the freedom to own and carry a gun no matter how it affects the right to be free from the potential irrational behavior of the person with a gun.
In this and many other countries the questions of freedom to and freedom from are clashing with each other. Communities have to consider the freedoms of individuals, businesses, children, adults, governments and many other entities. We all want to be free from potential infection but many are willing to risk being infected so as to enjoy the freedom to operate our business; just to be able to eat at a restaurant or get our hair done.
As with most important ethical questions there are no easy answers. We do, however, have the option of considering how freedom to affects freedom from; for ourselves, our families and every other person at every level of community.
Written April 29, 2020
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
RSS Feed