The cult of Induhvidualism
I have a question,
When people state with complete self assurance, that individual freedom and liberty is a right which is or should be inviolable, what is the basis for self assurance ?
One, that it is a self evident preposition, in a way social equivalent of law of gravity, a natural law. If that is the case where is the data, where are the field studies to support it.
Two, that it is a moral statement. If that is the case, what is the basis for it.
For me why is the morality of individual freedom any more useful than morality of strength and power.
Supplementary question, What is the basis behind any morality, why have it at all ? Lions don't have one, or for that matter deer. Why is it required for humanity ?
Hint, Do not ask rhetorical questions. For example, "Would you like to be oppressed ?" is rhetoric. The fact that I like my freedom is no more an argument in favour of individual liberty than the fact that I abhor working to earn money an argument in favour of communism.
7 comments:
I don't think anyone ever claimed it to be a natural law - because natural laws like gravity ( or the law of karma if you believe in it ) will automatically be enforced whatever we do.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- The American Declaration of Independence
Of course, just because the Americans say it is so doesnt make it true. You *could* compare this with the Law of Gravity. However, dont go looking for "data or field studies" to support this. Surely, it can be no one's case that gravity didnt exist before Newton proved it did.
Isnt individual freedom the hallmark of democracies and republics - arguably proved by history to be the best ones for the advancement of civilization. Of course it needs to be circumscribed by the broader national or social interest.
Frog,
Are you sure that people dont consider it as self evident ?
Sachin,
"arguably proved by history to be the best ones for the advancement of civilization"
Which means freedom is a means to end and not end in itself
"Of course it needs to be circumscribed by the broader national or social interest"
Exactly circumscirbed is the word
"Which means freedom is a means to end and not end in itself"
hmmm good point...I would say happiness is the ultimate end ( and freedom goes a long way in contributing to that )
Sachin,
Possibly.
So many people have put forward different theories from Brahman to Shunyata to Ubermench
Regards
I think I had misinterpreted - I interpreted your analogy with gravity to mean that some people believe freedom will automatically be enforced; I guess you are talking about people who see it as a natural law that freedom is the ultimate aim for mankind or something like that. There I agree, there are people who consider it self-evident.
Frog,
You are right, I meant that
Regards
Post a Comment