Freedom or fairness?

[nemafakei]

We can (almost) all agree that 'civil rights' movements over the past century and before, from the abolition of slavery to the ending of sexual discrimination.

But have these all been in favour of absolute freedoms, or of fairness? Certainly, the movements have often been associated with other liberal campaigns, and in many cases, they have indeed been in support of increasing the freedoms of individual groups - but normally only so that they are in line with everyone else.

When those of us who argue for freedoms as an ideal in of itself (from the freedom to think or say what you like, etc), are we missing the point?

Is it not more that the notions and connotations of freedom we have today were developed as a safeguard against oppression, rather than being an end in of itself: establishing fairness by autonomy? We are now taught that 'freedom is unquestionably good' by elements of society - but I say we should now start going back to that message of fairness, and start, now that we in the west have societies under which freedom is, for the most part attained, to move further in the direction of fairness: where one person's freedom invades the rights of others, we must treat each other with consideration, and act impartially - resist treating others with prejudice, and allowing judgements to be biased. We must now turn in the direction of a society which ensures that no-one is given an unfair relative disadvantage in life, rather than one in which we are free to do as we like at others' expense, or free to suffer poverty for no rason than our own bad luck.

The question is: do we fight for freedom for freedom's sake alone, or freedom as a means to establish fairness and justice?

This topic can clearly cover a range of issues, from the rights of criminals to the welfare state to media intervention in private lives.

[Anathema]

I'd like to start out with 2 simple models:

The objective model

The subjective model

If "freedom" is an objective term, it can be used as a standard for anywhere, anytime. Convicting Nazi's on the charge of deporting jews to death camps won't be a problem. Rights, or freedom, are inherent to any man regardless of where or when he's born.

Assuming freedom is subjective, and we take a democratic nation as the standard, democracy is not a means to protect freedom, it is freedom. Your freedom is what the people of your nation endorse and approve. Society is always right. Deporting minorities to death camps is acceptable when it's endorsed by the majority.

Suppose a majority wants to deport minorities to death camps? From the subjective standpoint, disobeying the majority is a breach of freedom. From the objective standpoint, the position of a benevolent dictator (someone who rules undemocraticly, yet with the best intentions) can be justified.

My personal view is a watered down version of the subjective stanpoint from above. Government rulership (as opposed to government decisions) is legitimate if it carries majority endorsement and it answers to certain moral basics (like not exporting minorities to death camps). It's a standpoint with a rather shaky balance though.

[Edric O]

First of all, to answer Nema's points:

It's very hard to separate freedom and fairness. For the most part, they go together. You can't have fairness unless all people are free (because there is no fairness in a system with masters and slaves), and you can't have freedom unless the system is fair to everyone (if some people are "more free" than others, then you essentially have masters and slaves).

I think that what you're trying to say, Nema, is that we shouldn't try to exaggerate "freedom" to the point where one man is free to infringe on the rights of others, and that we shouldn't forget the fact that freedom is only a means, not a purpose in itself. The purpose is to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals, and freedom is just one of the things necessary to reach that goal.

[Edric O]

I'd like to start out with 2 simple models:

The objective model

The subjective model

In reality, there is no such thing as an objective model of freedom. Such a model of freedom can only be established by some sort of infallible supreme being (like a god) or an objective law of nature. We can't depend on a god because not all people agree on religious matters, and there are no gods that make themselves openly known to us. Nature won't help us either, because "freedom" is a human concept.

The only models of freedom that we have are models invented and established by human beings. If you say that one of them is the "objective" model, then how do you decide WHICH ONE?

Freedom must necessarely be a subjective concept, because not all people agree on the same definition of freedom and there's no way to tell which one of them is "right".

So, basically, democracy IS freedom. That's the only logical conclusion.

[nemafakei]

"I think that what you're trying to say, Nema, is that we shouldn't try to exaggerate "freedom" to the point where one man is free to infringe on the rights of others, and that we shouldn't forget the fact that freedom is only a means, not a purpose in itself"

Yes, though my wording is somewhat more contorted.

Freedom is often interpreted as a lack of laws or intervention. Capitalism and the free market are examples of how this works: each person and each company is allowed to trade however they wish, charging whatever prices they agree on with the other people in the deal, and so forth. Government does not intervene in people earning as much money as they can acquire, so allowing them to be free. However, this does not necessarily work: if all employers decide to pay workers on the 'factory floor' a low wage, then their freedom to earn is restricted. They are technically able to acquire as much money as they can imagine if they inves what little cash they have, but realistically, they have little hope, especially if their skills do not lie in finance. So they are effecively forced to work for a pittance.

Taken to an extreme, freedom would also involve the absence of any laws whatsoever (people are totally free to do as they wish, "it's not the government's business"), and anarchy would prevail.

The solution is that freedom can only be guaranteed by restriction. It is not quite the doublethink of "Freedom is slavery". To guarantee the general wellbeing of all, there must be mechanism or organisations preventing abuse of freedoms. This entity must be able where necessary to override any perceived absolutes of freedom wherever it is clear that a system is being dishonestly misused.

"objective law of nature"

Or logic?

"So, basically, democracy IS freedom. That's the only logical conclusion"

Depends (subjugation of a minority? Democracy per se allows that). I think you could have freedom under benign dictatorship.

We can say that democracy is a more reliable way of guaranteeing freedom, but equation is dangerous.

Fairness precludes absolute freedom, and absolute freedom precludes fairness. But comprehensive freedom (the greatest mean freedom) can be obtained only through a system of fairness.

[Dude_Doc]

I don't believe in true freedom, for now. The true freedom is when we have machines within our society. When we have developed technology to the stage where humans are no longer needed.

And even if we do that, we aren't really free. We must take care of our families, we must, from time to time, check on things, keep up the democratic prosesses amongst other things not found in the everyday "work".

I think it was mentioned in movies like Fight Club and The Matrix. I remember from Fight Club: "You're not free until you've lost everything." This is true, since we aren't free unless the market and everything else connected to money making and capital is abolished, I've realised that now. "Things you own, ends up owning you."

And also, something from the Matrix, when Smith talks about "purpose". A thing which has no purpose, no destiny, is free. We will be free once responsibility, inequality, and other burdens which are weighted on us, are gone.

So, in essense, we won't be free, ever. We will always have responsibility, purpose, if not destiny itself, upon us until mankind disappear, or until the end of the universe (either when the universe collapses, or until all suns burn out their fuel).

What we can do, is to strive for more freedom. To strive for the perfect society. That is our purpose. A goal that can never be accomplished, yet, a thing that has to be a part of mankind. Becuase, as you know, without purpose, we wouldn't exist...

;)

[Edric O]

Freedom is often interpreted as a lack of laws or intervention.

Yes, and that is an immense mistake. Lack of intervention results in the "freedom" of some people to destroy the freedom of others, thus reducing the overall freedom of the people. Inevitably, some freedoms must be restricted in order for others to be guaranteed. For example, you do not have the freedom to murder or the freedom to enslave.

Capitalism and the free market are examples of how this works: each person and each company is allowed to trade however they wish, charging whatever prices they agree on with the other people in the deal, and so forth.

It's not as simple as that. Capitalism doesn't just involve a market. It also involves private property over the means of production, which results in exploitation, it also involves strict inheritance laws that give some people an immense head start in life (because their parents are rich), while others are too poor to ever stand a chance, and so on.

The mythology of the "free" market rests on the assumption that all parties involved are on an equal economic footing. But this is very often not the case. A "free" transaction between a rich corporation and a poor man starving to death in Africa is a cruel joke. The starving man has no choice but to accept any terms dictated by the corporation, while the corporation can always find another starving man if it wishes, so it has absolute power to impose any terms it wants. Thus, this "free" transaction is actually closer to a master/slave relationship. This is how sweatshops get set up.

Taken to an extreme, freedom would also involve the absence of any laws whatsoever (people are totally free to do as they wish, "it's not the government's business"), and anarchy would prevail.

Precisely. Read back to the beginning of my post. I pointed out that allowing people to do anything (including murder, for example) would actually result in a reduction of overall freedom.

The solution is that freedom can only be guaranteed by restriction. It is not quite the doublethink of "Freedom is slavery". To guarantee the general wellbeing of all, there must be mechanism or organisations preventing abuse of freedoms. This entity must be able where necessary to override any perceived absolutes of freedom wherever it is clear that a system is being dishonestly misused.

Again, I agree completely. This is where the government (and/or society itself, in the case of a stateless system like communism) comes in.

"objective law of nature"

Or logic?

Any logical train of thought must begin somewhere, from certain axioms. These can only be objective if they come from outside the human mind - from some law of nature or from some god.

"So, basically, democracy IS freedom. That's the only logical conclusion"

Depends (subjugation of a minority? Democracy per se allows that).

Perhaps it does, but no majority has ever voted to subjugate a minority. In all of human history, ALL decisions to subjugate minorities were taken by kings or dictators, not by majority vote.

I think you could have freedom under benign dictatorship.

Only the "freedom" that the dictator recognizes as such. And besides, as we all know, benign dictatorship is practically impossible. No human being is perfect, and power always corrupts.

What we can do, is to strive for more freedom. To strive for the perfect society. That is our purpose. A goal that can never be accomplished, yet, a thing that has to be a part of mankind. Becuase, as you know, without purpose, we wouldn't exist...

YES! This is what I've always said! Reaching a perfect society is impossible, but we must continuously seek to improve our own society by moving towards that perfect unreachable goal.

You will never reach infinity, but your value will always keep growing if you move towards it.

[Anathema]

.

In reality, there is no such thing as an objective model of freedom. Such a model of freedom can only be established by some sort of infallible supreme being (like a god) or an objective law of nature. We can't depend on a god because not all people agree on religious matters, and there are no gods that make themselves openly known to us. Nature won't help us either, because "freedom" is a human concept.

Despite the fact we are a rational species, there's also a number of inbred values and instincts. Using these as a starting point, most other rights can be found rationally. It certainly doesn't take much thinking to conclude that genocide is wrong. Nobody should be free to commit such obviously immoral acts, but pure democracy cannot garantue that.

The only models of freedom that we have are models invented and established by human beings. If you say that one of them is the "objective" model, then how do you decide WHICH ONE?

If you compare the different moral codes currently used and those throughout history, you'll find that there are differences but that there are also significant similarities. For the most part, they match with what you would rationally think of yourself. In none of the civilisations of history you had the freedom to murder someone just like that.

Freedom must necessarely be a subjective concept, because not all people agree on the same definition of freedom and there's no way to tell which one of them is "right".

Freedom essentially means "not bound by external inhibitions". Total freedom for multiple persons is impossible because everybody in a group effects eachother in some way. Freedom has to be restricted to some extent, but most people don't realise that, and give completely differently meaning to "freedom".

The state regulates civil traffic by imposing restrictions on people's freedom, giving everybody modest breathing room and making sure nobody harms anyone to an unacceptable extent. This restriction on freedoms is only acceptable if supported by the people.

So far it seems this supports your vision, Edric, but there are things that should not be allowed even if the majority of a nation approves of it. If the allies shared your vision at the Neurenberg trials the nazi's would have gotten away with everything they did.

So, basically, democracy IS freedom. That's the only logical conclusion.

A better way to say this would be that democracy garantues freedom to a certain extent. It however does not garantue freedom for everyone, and that's part of the problem.

Yes, and that is an immense mistake. Lack of intervention results in the "freedom" of some people to destroy the freedom of others, thus reducing the overall freedom of the people. Inevitably, some freedoms must be restricted in order for others to be guaranteed. For example, you do not have the freedom to murder or the freedom to enslave.

Even if the majority approves? This doesn't match what you said earlier.

In all of human history, ALL decisions to subjugate minorities were taken by kings or dictators, not by majority vote.

You're saying it can never happen then?

Furthermore, Hitler's decision to strip German jews of all their rights and property were supported by the majority of the German people. This could happen in your vision of freedom too.

[Edric O]

Despite the fact we are a rational species, there's also a number of inbred values and instincts. Using these as a starting point, most other rights can be found rationally. It certainly doesn't take much thinking to conclude that genocide is wrong.

Of course. There are some basic rights that we agree on - the kind of rights that 99.9% of all people would also agree on, such as the right to life. However, that doesn't make them objective. If 99.9% of people agree that one painting is more beautiful than another, does that make the first painting objectively more beautiful than the second? No, because beauty is an inherently subjective concept, invented by the human mind. The same applies to human rights and freedoms.

However, in practice, we can consider a number of basic human rights as de facto objective rights, since there is such a vast majority of people who agree with them.

Nobody should be free to commit such obviously immoral acts, but pure democracy cannot garantue that.

But if they are "obviously immoral acts", and if they are considered immoral as a result of our inbred values and instincts, then surely the majority of people will always support them! You seem to be contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you base "human rights" on the morality of the vast majority of people, but on the other hand you say these rights need to be protected from the majority.

Or, to put it another way:

If the vast majority of people agree with a certain human right, why do we need to protect it from the majority?

If the majority does not agree with that human right, how can you say that it is derived from inbred values and instincts common to all human beings?

If you compare the different moral codes currently used and those throughout history, you'll find that there are differences but that there are also significant similarities. For the most part, they match with what you would rationally think of yourself. In none of the civilisations of history you had the freedom to murder someone just like that.

Good. That means the majority of people will always agree that murder is evil, so a pure democracy will never legalize murder.

Freedom essentially means "not bound by external inhibitions". Total freedom for multiple persons is impossible because everybody in a group effects eachother in some way. Freedom has to be restricted to some extent, but most people don't realise that, and give completely differently meaning to "freedom".

Yes, of course. That was one of my points.

The state regulates civil traffic by imposing restrictions on people's freedom, giving everybody modest breathing room and making sure nobody harms anyone to an unacceptable extent. This restriction on freedoms is only acceptable if supported by the people.

So far it seems this supports your vision, Edric, but there are things that should not be allowed even if the majority of a nation approves of it. If the allies shared your vision at the Neurenberg trials the nazi's would have gotten away with everything they did.

No they wouldn't have, since the vast majority of people naturally consider murder and genocide to be crimes. You said that yourself.

A better way to say this would be that democracy garantues freedom to a certain extent. It however does not garantue freedom for everyone, and that's part of the problem.

Absolute freedom for anyone to do anything is impossible, because it would include the freedom to destroy the freedom of others.

Even if the majority approves? This doesn't match what you said earlier.

If human beings have an inherent sense of morality (as you claim), then the majority WON'T approve. If human beings don't have an inherent sense of morality, then who are you to impose your own morals on them?

Either way, democracy holds the moral high ground.

You're saying it can never happen then?

See above.

Furthermore, Hitler's decision to strip German jews of all their rights and property were supported by the majority of the German people. This could happen in your vision of freedom too.

First of all, how do you know? Nobody ever actually asked the German people, after all. There were no polls or referendums. Of course they all manifested their support for Hitler, but that might have had something to do with the fact that those who didn't show their enthusiasm had a tendency to dissapear and never be heard from again.

Second of all, passive acceptance is not the same as active support. Many of the people who passively accepted Hitler's measures would have never actively voted for them.

[Anathema]

Of course. There are some basic rights that we agree on - the kind of rights that 99.9% of all people would also agree on, such as the right to life. However, that doesn't make them objective.

However, in practice, we can consider a number of basic human rights as de facto objective rights, since there is such a vast majority of people who agree with them.

I considered them to be objective because they manifest everywhere, anytime. But you're right.

But if they are "obviously immoral acts", and if they are considered immoral as a result of our inbred values and instincts, then surely the majority of people will always support them! You seem to be contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you base "human rights" on the morality of the vast majority of people, but on the other hand you say these rights need to be protected from the majority.

If the vast majority of people agree with a certain human right, why do we need to protect it from the majority?

If the majority does not agree with that human right, how can you say that it is derived from inbred values and instincts common to all human beings?

Nothing in the human mind is so solid it can't be changed by mind conditioning. Obviously the German people would need brainwashing through extensive propaganda before letting Hitler do his thing. Therefore, what the majority in a nation believes is not necessarily right.

Good. That means the majority of people will always agree that murder is evil, so a pure democracy will never legalize murder.

No they wouldn't have, since the vast majority of people naturally consider murder and genocide to be crimes. You said that yourself.

It's doubtful wether or not the German people would have supported their regime if they knew the full extent of Hitlers "Endlosung der Judenfrage". However, they didn't break any of their (own) laws. The allies realised that the only way they, a foreign court, could trial German war criminals was to admit they were using some objective standard.

Absolute freedom for anyone to do anything is impossible, because it would include the freedom to destroy the freedom of others.

Haven't we both said this before?

If human beings have an inherent sense of morality (as you claim), then the majority WON'T approve. If human beings don't have an inherent sense of morality, then who are you to impose your own morals on them?

Answered above.

Either way, democracy holds the moral high ground.

First of all, how do you know? Nobody ever actually asked the German people, after all. There were no polls or referendums. Of course they all manifested their support for Hitler, but that might have had something to do with the fact that those who didn't show their enthusiasm had a tendency to dissapear and never be heard from again.Second of all, passive acceptance is not the same as active support. Many of the people who passively accepted Hitler's measures would have never actively voted for them.

Let's forget the actual genocide on the jews, and focus on the oppression since 1933. Their rights and freedoms diminished every passing day and scowled at on the streets. Ever heard of the Kristallnacht? During that night jews were harrassed all across Germany and jewish stores were plundered. It was incited by Nazi's playing as civilians, but the German people participated- an act of active opression by the people.

Do you acknowledge that democracy can sometimes be repressive towards minorities?

[Caid Ivik]

Main thing of these movements is first to "create" a group, then win rights for them and then harvest fruit of their "fight for fairness". Comparing slavery to "sexual intolerance" is like comparing world war to an inn fight.

[Dude_Doc]

Do you acknowledge that democracy can sometimes be repressive towards minorities?

What happened in the world 60 years ago is not likely to happen now. Racism hasn't diminished yet, but it keeps doing so. People realize they are wasting their lives on hating other people not like them. At least here, we do have organizations that can help people (racists) who don't want to be it anymore. You just have to have the will.

That and, you need to be informed. Not all knew exactly why people hated the Jews, only that they were bad and should get out. One person can think that everybody is doing this by their own will, while they really are not. Everybody think that the person next to him is totally obedient to the system, while maybe 80% are thinking like he does.

Anyway, back to info. What people need is to get informed. If there is less information, people will be able to make less (if they have a choice) decisions, resulting in less control over themselves. This is also a path to dictatorship.

[nemafakei]

Not just racism, any minority. From being unfair to the disabled, to unkind to asylum seekers, to discrimination against those living in a different postcode area.