The Freedom Paradigm
What is freedom?
Ask anyone in modern western society, and you will likely be met with a response amounting to “the right to do what I want - when I want - how I want.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines freedom as:
The condition of not being in prison or captivity.
The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance.
The condition of not being controlled by another nation or political power; political independence.
Today we celebrate the declaration of Independence signed by leading British colonists on July 2nd, 1776. While the origins of this celebration are rooted in more than just the revolution, the idea I would prefer to explore is this:
What does freedom mean for the individual in 21st century America, and does this understanding ultimately harm or help us as we navigate our lives?
Let’s work upward:
The condition of not being controlled by another nation or political power; political independence.
In the context of Independence Day, this definition is the most unifying. From scholastic declarations on university websites that nobody reads to meme accounts on Instagram that have thousands of engagements per day, a large portion of western society acknowledges that do not live under the control of a formal monarchy. This isn’t to say that our governing bodies are not subject to influence by foreign interests (that never happens), but we are, at least in name, a sovereign nation. Moving up the ladder from this ground floor definition is where things start to get a little less clear:
The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance.
The idea of the idea of subjective morality in the context of our founding can be traced back to the Unions of Arras and Utrecht’s effects in the Netherlands in the late 16th century. After centuries of wars and political upheaval over theological and social doctrine, the Dutch were ready to embrace a system that allowed them to avoid war and create an economically prosperous society. By separating one’s religious practices and convictions in the public square, a new communal consensus emerges: the ability to accumulate of wealth. This new cultural phenomenon endured criticism from theologians warning of the temptation of worshipping worldly matters over God primarily because, while each denomination had different understandings of how to interpret scripture, the sacraments, salvation, etc., they generally agreed on matters regarding family, civic duties, and morality all which eventually would be imbued into our country’s founding documents.
While Luther never intended to create the secular individualist society that inevitably resulted from his efforts, it is difficult to look at our current state of affairs and imagine an alternative result. Progressive society has provided the freedom for an unlimited number of acceptable views on every subject. If our politicians embody this freedom by claiming religious identities that they act in opposition to, why shouldn’t we? Looking to the final definition may best illuminate the answer:
The condition of not being in prison or captivity.
Let’s skip the obvious accuracy of this definition, and delve into the esoteric for a moment. We all suffer from vices, though with the gift of our conscience, we can generally discern what is a good action or a bad action. Why is that though? What makes something right and wrong to our conscience - referred to as “the most sacred of all property” by James Madison? Do we feel more or less free when we are stuck in a cycle of behavior that makes us feel good or bad? Do I feel better when I act in my own self interest or when I sacrifice my own wants for the good of the other? Is there a moral system that teaches why this is the case? If so, where can it be found?
Some scholars believe that our conscience is simply a moral indoctrination based on our upbringing while others believe that we are wired to recognize objective good. Without delving into the science behind cognitive development, we can look at two belief systems to see what the effect on the consciousness is.
Belief A): I have unlimited individual freedom, morality is subjective, and by creating my own moral code based on my understanding of the world, I will be happy and the world will be a better place for all
Belief B): I have unlimited individual freedom, morality is objective, and by conforming myself to the moral code given to me by God, I will be happy and the world will be a better place for all
Friedrich Nietzsche famously popularized the concept of will to power or self determination to become your own God (or Übermensch) which can be seen on both sides of the isle of American political thought and even adopted by some who would consider themselves in the “B” category. This is not necessarily because it aligns with teachings found in sacred scripture or sacred tradition but because our society has bestowed moral dualism as a virtue. What we must determine for ourselves is whether we believe that our gift of freedom is to be used as a way to conform ourselves to our own whims or to the will of a loving creator who’s moral commands are clear, unchanging, and universal.
