Increasingly, the subject matter of freedom has continued to occupy the center of public discourse all over the world. For one thing, everybody cherishes his or her freedom. It is natural for man to fight for his freedom.
“Freedom”, “my freedom”, everyone seems to be crying out aloud these days in the streets, on campuses, in the public square, in the market places and, in fact, everywhere. In the past, many thinkers and philosophers like Jean-Jacque Rousseau, John Locke and John Dewey had devoted considerable time and space in their respective writings examining the nature of freedom and human responsibilities. Today the subject matter of freedom continues to elicit public discussion. A college student, for instance, wants absolute freedom to do what he or she likes without any inhibitions. Some Economists argue that the only road to the 21st Century economic prosperity is economic freedom.
What is freedom? In his book entitled: Freedom, Cormack Burke states that freedom means the exercise of free will by the human person. It also means that man possesses the power of intelligent choice. But Burke went further to argue that free will and freedom are not the same thing. For example, in the exercise of one’s will, one might decide to travel to Australia; yet one may not have the cash to do so. Therefore one is not yet free to travel to Australia. Whereas, a slave, for instance, may have a free will but lacks the freedom to do what he wants to do. Is freedom synonymous with a license to do whatever one likes? Burke and many writers answer in the negative. Freedom is no license. Freedom doesn’t mean permission to do what one likes because a person can do what he likes and still not be free. According to Frank Sheed, one can eat as much as one likes and ends up suffering indigestion. So true freedom is to choose what is right, not what is wrong. True freedom to Burke, is the power to be oneself; the power to realize one’s potentials as a human being.
In his book: Christ Is Passing By, St. Josemaria Escriva, the Founder of Opus Dei, writes: “when we breathe this air of freedom, we see clearly that evil is enslavement, not liberation. He who sins against God keeps the freedom of his will to the extent that he is free from coercion, but he has lost it in that he is no longer free from blame. Such a person may show that he has acted according to his preferences, but he does not speak with the voice of true freedom, because he has become the slave of his decision, and he has decided for the worst, for the absence of God, where no freedom can be found”.
Aside offending God, wrong exercise of freedom destroys the public good. Take indecent dressing for example. Many of the young people who dress indecently argue that they are excising their freedom or their right. Libertarians advocating for freedom without responsibility equally argue that neither the State nor any individual has any right to regulate what they consider as their “private morality” or “private conduct”. In answer, Professor Robert P. George argues persuasively, and I agree with him that public morals regulate private conduct or right to privacy in so far as it harms, or threatens to harm the public interest or public good. The man smoking marijuana or the young student cheating in exams or browsing pornography might argue that the State is violating his right to private morality, but the State could counter-argue that what the man or the young student had don dubbed private morality harms public interest.
So freedom is not doing what one likes: true freedom is choosing what is right. Besides no freedom is absolute. Freedom without limits is sheer slavery. No man is an island unto himself. Our private acts can be damaging to the public morals. No individual has a right to put his neighbor in moral jeopardy under the pretext of exercising his freedom.
