Trio and Friends

Ondrej wrote:It is interesting that a business that pays "slave wages" you consider highly immoral but the employees are in fact free to leave. But when it comes to taxes, which nobody is free to refuse to pay, you take a much more favorable position.

Yes, absolutely. That's because freedom is not, for me, the ultimate moral principle that trumps all other moral principles when it is invoked. It is one important moral principle alongside others, in a complex balance that needs nuance and care.

For me, the goal of society is to facilitate human flourishing. What I mean by "human flourishing" is when
people live in accordance with the purpose for which they were created. God created us to love him by loving one another and by loving the creation he placed us in. God created us to work, to express ourselves creatively in our work, and to work for the benefit of others rather than for our own gain. God created us to take responsibility for one another's wellbeing, instead of only seeking our own. And God created some of us wiser and smarter than others, some healthier than others, some with leadership skills and some without.

Now, without freedom, people cannot flourish. That is why freedom is important. But people can also have too much freedom, which means they don't flourish. If you give a child the freedom to cross the road whenever they want, they will be killed. If you give an adult the freedom to hurt other people, neither they nor the people they hurt will flourish according to God's created design.

In addition, people don't always know everything it takes to secure their own flourishing. The world is complex and many things give the appearance of flourishing without actually doing so. Pornography is one example. In the vast majority of cases, freedom takes precedence and they are allowed to do things that hurt themselves.

But there is a further case. People don't always know how they are damaging the flourishing of others. For example, in a pandemic, a healthy young man might choose to ignore the guidance about social distancing and mask-wearing. As a result, he spreads the virus to many old and vulnerable people who then die. He did not mean to kill them, so he is not a murderer. But he simply didn't understand or believe that his actions would kill other people. So to prevent him from being a killer, the government makes mask-wearing mandatory. The government understands better what promotes the flourishing of all society, and employs that understanding accordingly.

Now, I know that such government rules can be abused, and have been abused throughout history. But in the ancient Latin saying, "the abuse does not abolish the use." We should not use examples of a thing going wrong to say that it shouldn't exist at all.

I'm replying here to something that appeared elsewhere:

Ondrej wrote:There is a fundamental limit to freedom. It doesn't "get worse" than freedom. And because you are free, you are free to design whatever institutions to address whatever concerns you like. There does not seem to be a slippery slope toward freedom but away from freedom. Freedom has to be fought for and kept with great care. We do see slippery slopes toward authoritarianism. This has happened over and over in the 20th century. Where do we see countries slipping uncontrollably toward freedom and then a total dissolution of the government. Has it ever happened even once? It just doesn't seem like a real danger.

I think there is a clear example of where there is too much freedom: anarchy. If freedom is the ultimate goal, why have any government at all? And yes, we have seen that happening many times in the 20th century as well, but by its very nature, the cases are less prominent in the news.

Yes, absolutely. That's because freedom is not, for me, the ultimate moral principle that trumps all other moral principles when it is invoked. It is one important moral principle alongside others, in a complex balance that needs nuance and care.

I agree that freedom is not the ultimate moral principle. However, it is the key difference between theft and voluntary exchange. The purpose of bringing freedom into that example is to underscore which behavior looks more like theft.

But people can also have too much freedom, which means they don't flourish. If you give a child the freedom to cross the road whenever they want, they will be killed. If you give an adult the freedom to hurt other people, neither they nor the people they hurt will flourish according to God's created design.

So, who has the authority to give such freedoms?

In the vast majority of cases, freedom takes precedence and they are allowed to do things that hurt themselves.

But why should they be allowed to hurt themselves and likely others? That doesn't sound very responsible.

So to prevent him from being a killer, the government makes mask-wearing mandatory. The government understands better what promotes the flourishing of all society, and employs that understanding accordingly.

I suppose, only the government that you agree with knows best. It is a little troublesome to square the Holodomor against such a statement.

I think there is a clear example of where there is too much freedom: anarchy.

This is not an example. Can you point to something in history?

If freedom is the ultimate goal, why have any government at all?

This is a good question. But I don't think freedom is the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is for people to decide for themselves. No, how do I say that more clearly? Ultimate goals are defined by the people themselves individually. Freedom is not that goal the goal is something else. Freedom facilitates this. It is the prerequisite for deciding what you want to spend your life on. And your ultimate goal will differ through time and between people.

And yes, we have seen that happening many times in the 20th century as well, but by its very nature, the cases are less prominent in the news.

Which countries and time periods are you referring to? My initial gut reaction is that if anarchy could be maintained that it would serve the people well, at least until an invading force took them over. My guess is that anarchy quickly gives rise to a dictatorial tyrant from a lack of an organized opposing force.