Ethical Differences Between Morality And Free Will
The second school of thought I will discuss is ethics. From an ethical view there is many ways to behave around an individual’s freedom of choice and morals. In the context of ethical freedom, we are representing what is morally right and wrong. The question is, are we free to physically mistreat people who are weaker? Should we be allowed to steal if we can get away with it? Nonetheless, there is a difference between morality and ethics. The ethical point of view includes honesty, impartiality and how we should behave in a specific environment (work, school, and home). Morality is based on what is right and what is wrong. Some people have no ethics and reject morality. They feel that you must absorb by the current situation or should have
…show more content…
follow your own freedom of will.
Say for instance, and elderly person makes fun of you, people who believe in self-defense may not believe in an ethical point of you of just ignoring the old person, but for them they would have to strike back either verbally or even physically. However, moving on to the context of freedom, another ethical point of view is, would we have the freedom to hit someone just because we felt the urge to do so without objective reason. We in principle have the free will to do so. However, there will be consequences for this type of action that could include jail time or a large fine. The main question though is, should there be consequences if we follow our own free will? The answer for most cases should certainly be yes because if you kick someone when they are down, you are also taking away their freedom by causing physical pain and hurting their self-esteem. In my opinion, I would feel morally obligated to be kind and not challenge someone because they may be weaker or older, it is not right for us to do so even if we are physically free to do so. It is not fear of consequences that stops me but the fact that it is completely wrong from a moral standpoint and would make me feel both physically and morally …show more content…
sick.
Freedom has many different meanings at a personal level. Factors that can play a role here include age, social, financial and relationship standing to name a few. For example, teenagers and young adults generally have more strength and stamina to do sports than elderly people because of their age. Elderly people therefore generally do not have the same freedom to do sports at a high or professional level even if they wish to do so because of physical restrictions. They may want to be a professional athlete but cannot because they are older and their physical abilities have deteriorated with age. This does not mean that they can’t play sports. They simply have a higher chance of becoming and obtaining injuries. Young people can also get injured but the risk is generally lower.
On the other hand, young people may have a strong desire to be free from their parents while maintaining a strong financial status. They can become “free” by leaving home but this freedom is most often not accompanied by the same financial freedom and stability that the parents have. Young adults may very well have the freedom to set out on their own, but in most cases the financial challenges they will face in maintaining a similar lifestyle will wipe away many of the freedoms they enjoyed while living with their parents.
No one should be put through pain instead of their freedom. If children have abusive parents, they should have the freedom to leave the household and their parents should not hinder their freedom to leave.
Another example of can include people who get overwhelmingly anxious when getting up to speak infront of large crowds. Should we have the freedom to make them speak, or should they have the freedom of choice to speak not to without being judged? This way we should look at the person suffering the most, which is of course the nervous speaker. Maybe they do not speak as well as their colleagues and peers, or they will be judged based on how they speak, so why should they feel obliged to do so? I feel that we should not invoke other people’s self-consciousness nor should we judge their freedoms in ability to decide not go, therefore not calling them foul names either based on their choices. Also, in terms of freedom for a child, I feel it is wrong that they cannot pursue their freedom just because of financial challenges. There should be more help in order to pursue the child’s freedom to
Fourthly, I would like to present the views of philosophers and their views on freedoms.
One philosopher that dedicated an entire book to the concept of freedom, Rudolf Steiner, describes it as being the basis of our own human actions to pursue freedom. Rudolf Steiner was highly politically engaged. He was born in Austria and lived through the rise of the Nazis and right wingers in Germany. He wrote a book called “Philosophy of Freedom.” He discusses in the book how human beings can be said to be free. Steiner was willing to discuss the knowledge of freedom, and he related it at the same time to the reality of the freedoms that people actually face. These are one of his first and second parts of the book. Steiner describes freedom as being and perceiving human action is not free if he or she does not know why to perform it. In detail, he is reflecting on our freedom of choice and why do certain things that we do not want to or do not know why we do them. In the second part of his book, Steiner reflects the reality of freedom. Steiner discusses freedom of will. He mentions that our instincts, feelings, and thoughts are determined by our character. However, on the other hand, we may adopt our behaviour from the abstract moral and ethical codes of society. Personally, I very much agree with him on the topic of our moral codes and practices. Steiner mentions that we live by these standards. However, we are less likely to be judged in our society now than when he was alive.
Reflecting the perception of that our freedom is based on human actions is also an important role mentioned by Rudolf Steiner.
Another philosopher who dedicated much thought to the concept of freedom was Nikolai Berdyaev from Russia. Berdyaev was a Christian existentialist who believed in creativity and everything that was related to creativity. He lived during early Soviet times and opposed the collectivization of agriculture. Farmers could not produce their own crops anymore and had to share land with other farmers. Basically, the government took control of all the farms, taking away peoples freedom to have their own farms. People like Berdyaev who disagreed with this policy were often arrested and sent to prison camps in Siberia. Nikolai Berdyaev was rebellious against all authorities who contained a “negative spirit” such as the Soviets. While practicing the Russian Orthodox faith, he criticized the freedom of institutional policies, which he considered un-Christian. These institutions of freedom can be related to freedom of religion, and having the ability to practice your faith, which the Soviets took away under Communist rule. Nikolai Berdyaev also believed that Orthodox Christianity was the virtue of all teachings, making him a Christian Universalist. Although, I believe that all religions should have freedom, not just Russian Orthodoxy, and disagree Berdyaev on this topic.
The founder of the Soviet Union and first Communist government in Russia, Vladimir Lenin, also had his own political philosophy. This contrasted sharply with Berdyaev’s ideas. Lenin’s ideas became known as Leninism. Lenin believed that working class people and farmers should have the most rights in society. However, this idea did not work out in practice because Soviet farmers would soon be forced to join collective farms or face persecution or arrest. Under collectivization, farmers could no longer own their own farm. This takes us back to political freedom and government policies that lead to dictatorship and losses of freedoms. The concept of government taking away our political and economic freedoms like the communists in the early USSR did is not right even if one argues that the same government provided certain freedoms such as free education, housing and health care.
In conclusion, the summarization of each individuals freedom is up to the individual of him/herself. However, as we have seen throughout this paper, that a lot of the times, it is also reflected either from their government or from the persons social stance regarding race, gender and religion. Furthermore, we also saw through an ethical and metaphysical point of view, that people achieve their own freedom through their personal will. Also, the discussion of three different philosophers point of view took place,where each one had a different perspective and even different laws regarding freedom. Whether it was going from totall dictatorship, to total democracies. Overall, in relation to moral and ethical freedom, our choices should be up to and dependant on the ourselves, or the other person. Whether or not a person you are in a position where you pursue something you are not good at, or are too weak to do something physically because of age or body type, it is your moral obligation to decide, not the others.
follow your own freedom of will.
Say for instance, and elderly person makes fun of you, people who believe in self-defense may not believe in an ethical point of you of just ignoring the old person, but for them they would have to strike back either verbally or even physically. However, moving on to the context of freedom, another ethical point of view is, would we have the freedom to hit someone just because we felt the urge to do so without objective reason. We in principle have the free will to do so. However, there will be consequences for this type of action that could include jail time or a large fine. The main question though is, should there be consequences if we follow our own free will? The answer for most cases should certainly be yes because if you kick someone when they are down, you are also taking away their freedom by causing physical pain and hurting their self-esteem. In my opinion, I would feel morally obligated to be kind and not challenge someone because they may be weaker or older, it is not right for us to do so even if we are physically free to do so. It is not fear of consequences that stops me but the fact that it is completely wrong from a moral standpoint and would make me feel both physically and morally …show more content…
sick.
Freedom has many different meanings at a personal level. Factors that can play a role here include age, social, financial and relationship standing to name a few. For example, teenagers and young adults generally have more strength and stamina to do sports than elderly people because of their age. Elderly people therefore generally do not have the same freedom to do sports at a high or professional level even if they wish to do so because of physical restrictions. They may want to be a professional athlete but cannot because they are older and their physical abilities have deteriorated with age. This does not mean that they can’t play sports. They simply have a higher chance of becoming and obtaining injuries. Young people can also get injured but the risk is generally lower.
On the other hand, young people may have a strong desire to be free from their parents while maintaining a strong financial status. They can become “free” by leaving home but this freedom is most often not accompanied by the same financial freedom and stability that the parents have. Young adults may very well have the freedom to set out on their own, but in most cases the financial challenges they will face in maintaining a similar lifestyle will wipe away many of the freedoms they enjoyed while living with their parents.
No one should be put through pain instead of their freedom. If children have abusive parents, they should have the freedom to leave the household and their parents should not hinder their freedom to leave.
Another example of can include people who get overwhelmingly anxious when getting up to speak infront of large crowds. Should we have the freedom to make them speak, or should they have the freedom of choice to speak not to without being judged? This way we should look at the person suffering the most, which is of course the nervous speaker. Maybe they do not speak as well as their colleagues and peers, or they will be judged based on how they speak, so why should they feel obliged to do so? I feel that we should not invoke other people’s self-consciousness nor should we judge their freedoms in ability to decide not go, therefore not calling them foul names either based on their choices. Also, in terms of freedom for a child, I feel it is wrong that they cannot pursue their freedom just because of financial challenges. There should be more help in order to pursue the child’s freedom to
Fourthly, I would like to present the views of philosophers and their views on freedoms.
One philosopher that dedicated an entire book to the concept of freedom, Rudolf Steiner, describes it as being the basis of our own human actions to pursue freedom. Rudolf Steiner was highly politically engaged. He was born in Austria and lived through the rise of the Nazis and right wingers in Germany. He wrote a book called “Philosophy of Freedom.” He discusses in the book how human beings can be said to be free. Steiner was willing to discuss the knowledge of freedom, and he related it at the same time to the reality of the freedoms that people actually face. These are one of his first and second parts of the book. Steiner describes freedom as being and perceiving human action is not free if he or she does not know why to perform it. In detail, he is reflecting on our freedom of choice and why do certain things that we do not want to or do not know why we do them. In the second part of his book, Steiner reflects the reality of freedom. Steiner discusses freedom of will. He mentions that our instincts, feelings, and thoughts are determined by our character. However, on the other hand, we may adopt our behaviour from the abstract moral and ethical codes of society. Personally, I very much agree with him on the topic of our moral codes and practices. Steiner mentions that we live by these standards. However, we are less likely to be judged in our society now than when he was alive.
Reflecting the perception of that our freedom is based on human actions is also an important role mentioned by Rudolf Steiner.
Another philosopher who dedicated much thought to the concept of freedom was Nikolai Berdyaev from Russia. Berdyaev was a Christian existentialist who believed in creativity and everything that was related to creativity. He lived during early Soviet times and opposed the collectivization of agriculture. Farmers could not produce their own crops anymore and had to share land with other farmers. Basically, the government took control of all the farms, taking away peoples freedom to have their own farms. People like Berdyaev who disagreed with this policy were often arrested and sent to prison camps in Siberia. Nikolai Berdyaev was rebellious against all authorities who contained a “negative spirit” such as the Soviets. While practicing the Russian Orthodox faith, he criticized the freedom of institutional policies, which he considered un-Christian. These institutions of freedom can be related to freedom of religion, and having the ability to practice your faith, which the Soviets took away under Communist rule. Nikolai Berdyaev also believed that Orthodox Christianity was the virtue of all teachings, making him a Christian Universalist. Although, I believe that all religions should have freedom, not just Russian Orthodoxy, and disagree Berdyaev on this topic.
The founder of the Soviet Union and first Communist government in Russia, Vladimir Lenin, also had his own political philosophy. This contrasted sharply with Berdyaev’s ideas. Lenin’s ideas became known as Leninism. Lenin believed that working class people and farmers should have the most rights in society. However, this idea did not work out in practice because Soviet farmers would soon be forced to join collective farms or face persecution or arrest. Under collectivization, farmers could no longer own their own farm. This takes us back to political freedom and government policies that lead to dictatorship and losses of freedoms. The concept of government taking away our political and economic freedoms like the communists in the early USSR did is not right even if one argues that the same government provided certain freedoms such as free education, housing and health care.
In conclusion, the summarization of each individuals freedom is up to the individual of him/herself. However, as we have seen throughout this paper, that a lot of the times, it is also reflected either from their government or from the persons social stance regarding race, gender and religion. Furthermore, we also saw through an ethical and metaphysical point of view, that people achieve their own freedom through their personal will. Also, the discussion of three different philosophers point of view took place,where each one had a different perspective and even different laws regarding freedom. Whether it was going from totall dictatorship, to total democracies. Overall, in relation to moral and ethical freedom, our choices should be up to and dependant on the ourselves, or the other person. Whether or not a person you are in a position where you pursue something you are not good at, or are too weak to do something physically because of age or body type, it is your moral obligation to decide, not the others.