I've began to understand things a little differently these last few days. You see, it seems that we've been sold the idea of a traditional dichotomy, if you will. The battle of the right vs left, but maybe there's a better way to look at these debates.

img src

Freedom

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

A simple concept, yet one that we can't seem to really agree on, at least not all of us humans. I think it's imperative to not take the religious approach, because it's without a doubt a concept that is shared and ironically almost worshiped by plenty of secular minded folks.

We have a general outline that works for most scenarios, and we also have popular saying that work wonders to illustrate personal freedoms. For example: You freedom to swing your fists, ends before my nose, etc.

But truth is that a life without freedom, without us being the masters of our own destiny, our own choices, is probably not a very valuable one. And yes, that may be bitter, but it seems to ring very true.

Morality

Is subjective, always has been always will be. One could attempt to make arguments for an objective morality, but they would be in complete contradiction with historical evidence. As a matter of fact, I will go as far as to say that even the most barbaric of nations, believes themselves to be moral. If you don't believe me, you've probably not read enough about WW2, but I digress.

The truth is that because morality is subjective, and thus personal, we need the concept of freedom to curve it's reach and vice versa. To give a simple to agree on vanilla example, I may find it immoral to force people to serve in the army, yet I know of plenty of nations that not serving is not an option. (Israel comes to mind).

Because morality and ethics are ever changing, it's somewhat impossible to govern from moral positions. I'm not saying we don't try, or that we shouldn't try, I'm saying that it's very very difficult.

Freedom vs Morality

To my point, it's a lot simpler to define the right from wrong, zooming out from the emotional debates. That being said, the concept of right and wrong is not defined by a morality alone, not entirely.

To give some concrete examples: When the left argues for taking everyone's guns, because in their view owning guns is immoral and unethical. Their position is one of moral imposition, against the freedom to bear arms, a freedom given to us by our very constitution.

In this example, it's easy for me to see who is wrong. The argument for morality is too subjective to hold any water. To a law abiding gun owner, it's unethical for anyone to take his right to defend himself, to take his freedom is immoral. The gun owner operates within the personal spectrum, and the one who advocates to take his guns, from a moral imposition on others, an infringement of freedom.

Another example is the debacle of abortion: When the right argues for banning them altogether, because in their view it's immoral and unethical. Their position is one of moral imposition, against the freedom a woman has to govern her own body. A freedom also guaranteed by our constitution.

It's easy to see who is wrong as well. The argument for morality is also subjective and circumstantial, since the pregnancy can be rape, incest, or a danger to the mother. A self governing human is told that she cannot make decisions over her life, her freedom is being attacked, and she finds this inmoral.

The next time you argue

Think about your actual position. Are you arguing from a place of personal freedom, respecting everyone's right to make choices? or are you imposing morality? A task, mind you, that is as futile as drying up your car in the middle of the rain.

Preemptive objections

I know some will say things like: What about someone killing someone else? Or robbing? Are you saying they are free to do these things?. That's a strawman argument, and if you think about it carefully it makes no sense.

If someone kills, someone is robbing a victim of their freedom to live, hence the logic follows through. If someone robs, it's also an action against someone's freedom to own personal property. We can talk about the morality of it all, of course, but that's not the only tool we have to think of governance and social cooperation.

MenO