The debate "To say you are free is to deprive yourself of responsibilities." was started by
July 10, 2015, 8:07 am.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 36 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
arsonfly posted 2 arguments, clemnlawrence posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 1 argument, sarah posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
clemnlawrence, vinnytragz, BernieSanders4pres, Bxat9, alexithymia, renatus8993, spellbeechamp, Trance, dgw23, Skeetc15 and 9 visitors agree.
arsonfly, Alp4president, toughgamerjerry, PsychDave, Shi, I_Voyager, Afshin, Turtle, latz, Girl101, denno27, sarah, Heartless_uh, invincible_01, skyfrancois_97, AstroSpace, mikeyjagar, Tristanzee and 18 visitors disagree.
freedom can't ever be absolute and it's always restricted by our surroundings, therefore the concept that says freedom shatters our responsibilities means the distruction of our community which is built on everyone being responsible and conscious. However freedom can be an essential element that should be given to everyone one in order to provide the suitable conditions to take his responsibilities.
You can never be truly free. Freedom becomes relative to the objects associating. Let's take a single person who lives in a forest alone. Though he is free of peer relationships, he is not free from hunger. Since he is not free from hunger, he hunts to stay alive. He is not free from the elements so he must build a shelter.
This "state of nature" is always enslaving the objects within nature.
Secondly, a heroine addict is not free to not be an addict, because his nature is determined by the mechanics of his brain. So long as heroine dependency exists in his brain, he is not free from a heroine addiction.
So a person is never truly free. But there are degrees of freedom. You can act to be less dependent on your internal state in order to act by purifying yourself of addictions and by criticizing yourself. How free you can be is equally as uncertain as our understanding of the brain is incomplete. Freedom from the constraints of reality is as uncertain as our understanding of physics and engineering is incomplete. And those things are dependent on the flexibility of our economy and our politics.
So a state that is "free" is encouraging personal and scientific growth, if we can accept that "Free" is synonymous with "As free as we can be." But reality always necessarily resembles "As free as we are." If we want "As free as we can be", we need a roadmap through all the things reducing our freedoms. Therefore true freedom is never a shirking of responsibility, but the product of responsibility.
This is a tough one for me. Is freedom a dichotomy? Are we only able to free or not free? Or are there levels? I've honestly never understood completely what freedom is. Do I believe being free absolves us of responsibility? I think I agree with PsychDave on that. I think being free makes you more aware of your responsibilities.
If you are free, any actions you take are your own. You cannot blame the government or anyone else for your decisions. As no one is controlling you, you are wholly responsible for anything you do. I think this places more responsibility on an individual as otherwise they can always blame their decisions and actions on the government, or society, or some other force controlling them, thus shirking responsibility.
free in general. the gov't never proffered an authentic freedom to its state (e.g we are free to do anything but there is a consequence if something unlikely happened like you have the freedom of speech but there is a limitation with that freedom so meaning there is a relative responsibility in that particular freedom). there then, we could already sense that our freedom still has an inclined responsibilities with it. to say that you are free is really an excuse. that is, you deprive yourself to be reliable of your responsibilities..
free is a relative term. "free from what?" is the question. free from tyranny? free from persecution? it depends on how you define freedom, which can actually be pretty broad.