trashcanpandas t1_iueot5s wrote on October 30, 2022 at 7:30 PM

I'm quite confused on what the basis of the word "freedom" means in the context of this argument, as it can be broad. Is it freedom from financial obligations required in most of our lives? Is it freedom to express thought without consequence?

contractualist OP t1_iueso2o wrote on October 30, 2022 at 7:55 PM

I talk about that here. When I say freedom, I mean only the experience of freedom.

trashcanpandas t1_iufa2c2 wrote on October 30, 2022 at 9:51 PM

>Simply, freedom is the power to reflect on our desires and change them based on abstract principles—including morals.

With this, the framing of this argument Freedom vs Utility is very difficult to wrap my head around or make sense. Utility focuses on material conditions and the improvement of such for reasons pertaining to quality of life and survival, whereas the freedom in this context does not contradict or contest that. If anything, it seems to be in support of utility over freedom, since people are moved towards values and principles because of their material conditions. With this in mind, ultimately, utility is what drives many in the pursuit of their "freedom".

contractualist OP t1_iufcl28 wrote on October 30, 2022 at 10:09 PM

Yes people freely move towards utility. This is why I argue freedom grounds the value of utility, since free people would pursue utility. I also wouldn't say people are pursuing freedom. They already have it, and are exercising it when they choose to improve their conditions.

You can think of the question as being "should people be free to increase their utility or should people be forced to increase their utility?" The former grounds ethics on freedom whereas the latter grounds it on welfare.

zhibr t1_iuhdc5q wrote on October 31, 2022 at 10:35 AM

I'm not following. If the experience of freedom is the foundation of morality, does it mean that the most moral thing to do would be to create and put all humans into Matrix where each person was given as much freedom as possible in their own private reality?

contractualist OP t1_iuk646q wrote on October 31, 2022 at 11:12 PM

What I mean is that our freedom is the basis of our moral universe. It determines who is part of that universe and its rules. And its binary (or based on a threshold), whether you are subject to moral rules depend on whether you are free. And moral rules must be created based on what free people would agree to.

This is obviously a very controversial topic and I'll be discussing it much more on my substack. If there are any issues that should be addressed, please let me know so I can write about them.

Ayearbeforeelvis t1_iufho05 wrote on October 30, 2022 at 10:45 PM

It could be argued that freedom is an illusion and that just like every perceived choice we make is based on our perception of inputs or stimulus. The past has shaped our current reactions based on the same thing. Freedom is not a choice but a pre-determined outcome. Every individual experiences this in their own way regardless of the political system in power. Half of a democratic society lives in a communist state because of how the voting system works. If you're preferred party looses, you just have to live with that as best you can. Even those who voted for the winning party experience tyranny because the promises made during an election more often than not are not actioned. I'm not saying communism is better. But Democratic nations definitely need to evolve towards a better system.

bdure t1_iuhnhvs wrote on October 31, 2022 at 12:27 PM

A ranked-choice multiparty system would surely be more utilitarian— and I’d think we’d all be freer from political extremism. (Especially if you’re gay, trans, first-generation American, Jewish, etc.)

Ayearbeforeelvis t1_iujlkwf wrote on October 31, 2022 at 8:38 PM

I can't comment. The moderator blocked my last response and may even block this one. Not a believer in free speech it seems.