RSS
Home
Liberty - individuals are free moral agents
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Liberty n. – Autonomy. Immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority. Freedom of choice.
Liberty forms the core of libertarian thought. Libertarians believe human beings should remain free to exercise sovereignty over their own lives, and that each individual should freely chose her own belief system, her own moral code and her own course of action without coercive interference from others.
Equality sets the stage for liberty. When we understand that we are all created equal, as we explored in the last post on the philosophical foundations of liberty, it becomes self-evident that no individual has an innate right to rule over another. And like the concept of equality, liberty finds its roots in Judeo-Christian theology.
God endowed every human being with the power to choose. In the creation story told in Genesis, God placed Adam and Eve in a garden. He told Adam, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (Gen. 2:17)
Implicit in the command is a choice. God could certainly have prevented Adam from accessing the fruit. God could have blown Eve up the moment she reached for the proverbial apple. He could have banned the tempting serpent from the garden. But God did not do any of these things. He left the choice open. He granted Adam and Eve liberty, even knowing that their choice would ultimately wreck havoc on creation.
God grants humans the ability to choose. He created us as free moral agents. We can choose to behave morally. We can choose to behave immorally. We can choose to accept the grace of God. We can choose to reject that gift. We can follow or we can walk away. God – the ultimate power in the universe - does not force his will upon creation.
“O Jerusalem, O Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you. How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you were not willing.” - Jesus in Matthew 23:37 (emphasis added)
Eighteenth century liberal philosophers such as John Locke and J.S. Mill reasoned that if God does not force his will upon humankind, neither should one man force his will upon another. In An Essay on Tolerance, Locke argued that God draws people to him through persuasion, not force. Likewise, the state should not force a man to adhere to a certain religion or moral framework. The principle of the separation of church and state was ironically built upon a theological framework.
“All the life and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the mind,” Locke wrote.
Mill took the notion of liberty and placed it in a societal context.
“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forebear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.” -J.S. Mill On Liberty
Clearly, some form of government and authoritative power is necessary in an ordered political society. Locke wrote that to understand political power, we must first understand the state of humankind.
“To understand political power right, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom.”
How do we establish government when all people are ultimately free? Through the consent of the governed.
We’ll explore this idea next week.
Related Articles:
Comments
