Freedom or Futility

Freedom, liberty, whatever else we might like to call it is an elusive and slippery concept. We might say: “Freedom is lack of restraint.” “It is to be able to do as one likes.” Or, “it is not being controlled, manipulated or bossed about by others.” All this seems very true but there is something not quite satisfactory about all these.

If all restraints are taken away in what sense are we then free? Indeed are we free at all? If we had no laws, norms of behaviour or social conventions, would we be less free than we are when we act within them? Indeed, when we act within them do we often do so of our own free will? In which we must then be free.

We cold ask regarding control by others whether that control is not also a condition of our freedom. The police officer directing traffic is doing so for our own and for the good of society, so are we not rather more free than less by the directions of the officer? The fire brigade may have evacuated everyone from the proximity of a dangerous fire. My refusal to move on the grounds of freedom is only a freedom to be burned to death, or at least seriously injured. This is hardly the freely undertaken noble fate of the professional fire fighter who risks life and limb to save others. Rather it is the result of stupidity.

Doing what I like may be something arising in my psyche from a variety causes. A rather obvious case is that of the drug addict or the alcoholic who doing what he likes allows an overpowering addiction to destroy him.

Restraints my certainly seem to curtail our freedom but lack of them may lead to license. If my freedom to do as I like restricts the free exercise of others of their legitimate freedoms is this not rather a tyranny on my part? If it is then we could argue with Socrates that if we do evil things then we are likely to become evil. Since it seems generally to be agreed that freedom is either a virtue or associated with virtue then vice must be the opposite and therefore a form of addiction.

The anti-hero of Albert Camus’ book The Outsider acts in defiance of social conventions because, for instance, he does not see why he should mourn at his mother’s funeral. Camus says that Mersault is a man who defies convention in the interests of truth. However his meaningless murder of an Arab leads to his arrest and conviction. He seems also to be a man who acts out every whim. It is difficult to see how Camus can sustain that argument about truth, or argue for freedom. The book is rather an experiment, an investigation of possible human behaviour. Camus was an honest man himself and changed his ideas as he matured.