Comments on "Freedom from" or "freedom for"TypePad2010-02-10T16:00:26ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/02/freedom-from-or-freedom-for/comments/atom.xml/shilpa6 commented on '"Freedom from" or "freedom for"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20120a890c397970b2010-02-12T06:06:13Z2010-02-12T06:06:13Zshilpa6http://www.Attorneyintemecula.comi am also agree your point serious and willful misconduct<p>i am also agree your point</p>
<p>serious and willful misconduct</p>Michael Scaperlanda commented on '"Freedom from" or "freedom for"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20120a88d9f26970b2010-02-11T17:05:23Z2010-02-11T17:05:23ZMichael ScaperlandaRob, George, and Kevin: Thank you for your excellent points. George and Marc, thank you for the citations. Michael<p>Rob, George, and Kevin: Thank you for your excellent points. George and Marc, thank you for the citations. Michael</p>Kevin Lee commented on '"Freedom from" or "freedom for"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20120a887ba76970b2010-02-10T18:46:31Z2010-02-10T18:46:31ZKevin LeeHi Michael, I would want to draw a distinction between power and authority. Although Patrick Brennan could speak with more...<p>Hi Michael,</p>
<p>I would want to draw a distinction between power and authority. Although Patrick Brennan could speak with more clarity than me on this. It seems to me that authority implies legitimate use of power. I do not believe that freedom can ever be achieved without authority. To act under the authority of the Good is not inconsistent with freedom. To act under the power of an immoral impulse is coercive and destructive of freedom. It was John Paul II's belief that the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century prevented humans beings from being free to act under the authority of the Good. </p>R. George Wright commented on '"Freedom from" or "freedom for"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20128778a1633970c2010-02-10T17:45:21Z2010-02-10T17:45:21ZR. George WrightMore specifically, even if we say that all of our choices and actions are under or pursuant to some authority,...<p>More specifically, even if we say that all of our choices and actions are under or pursuant to some authority, we normally still want to draw important normative distinctions, with regard to the degree of freedom involved, between, say, being under the authority of a Hitler or a Stalin, the "authority" of an unwanted addiction, the "authority" of a preference for chocolate over vanilla, or the "authority" of our cultivated, more or less reasoned or autonomous, identity-constitutive and identified-with preference for astronomy over astrology or even for Gabrielli over Gaga. You could certainly make the partly social scientific point that being under the impression that one is autonomously creating oneself through largely free spontaneous acts of pure self-determination [ask them how that fits in with what they learned in their science classes, by the way] may be mostly illusory. Has the number of students with tattoos increased because more people have recognized the rational superiority of having a tattoo? Or that a tattoo expresses one's genuine individuality, as distinct from being a sort of cultural fad or popular style? </p>Marc DeGirolami commented on '"Freedom from" or "freedom for"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201287789fefe970c2010-02-10T17:31:07Z2010-02-10T17:31:07ZMarc DeGirolamiThere is also Isaiah Berlin's classic, Two Concepts of Liberty. I think he might be a bit more leery of...<p>There is also Isaiah Berlin's classic, Two Concepts of Liberty. I think he might be a bit more leery of "freedom for" than is suggested by your initial comment, at least if one is referring to "positive" liberty and the "freedom of rational self direction" lest we end up locked up in Sarastro's temple! </p>R. George Wright commented on '"Freedom from" or "freedom for"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20120a8873c3f970b2010-02-10T17:15:39Z2010-02-10T17:15:39ZR. George WrightThe classic place to start here would be Gerald C. MacCallum, Jr., "Negative and Positive Freedom," 76 Philosophical Review 312-334(1967)(freedom...<p>The classic place to start here would be Gerald C. MacCallum, Jr., "Negative and Positive Freedom," 76 Philosophical Review 312-334(1967)(freedom as a triadic relationship)</p>rob vischer commented on '"Freedom from" or "freedom for"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20120a8873a44970b2010-02-10T17:14:31Z2010-02-10T17:14:31Zrob vischerI agree with your point.<p>I agree with your point.</p>Michael Scaperlanda commented on '"Freedom from" or "freedom for"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20120a8871c83970b2010-02-10T17:03:14Z2010-02-10T17:03:14ZMichael ScaperlandaThanks Rob for your comment. It helps me hone my argument. I agree with everything you say, but my focus...<p>Thanks Rob for your comment. It helps me hone my argument. I agree with everything you say, but my focus isn't on law and freedom "from" restraint by the state. Many people in our culture, including some students writing reflection papers, view freedom culturally as freedom from restraint (or even strong suggestion) by the state, church authority, parental authority, etc. In this view it is freedom to be your own master - to create yourself anyway you want. My narrow point is that any time we exercise freedom, we are exercising it "for" some good, bound by (under the authority of) some driving criteria that tells us that this is a good we ought to seek. In other words, we are always under some authority - the authority of our peers, if we desire acceptance, the authority of comfort, if that is what we desire, etc. What do you think?</p>rob vischer commented on '"Freedom from" or "freedom for"'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20120a887114a970b2010-02-10T16:55:13Z2010-02-10T16:55:13Zrob vischerI'm not sure I'd say "freedom from" is illusory, just that it's not complete. "Freedom from" a state requirement to...<p>I'm not sure I'd say "freedom from" is illusory, just that it's not complete. "Freedom from" a state requirement to worship in a certain way is not illusory, as it is a prerequisite to "freedom for" pursuit of authentic religious devotion. "Freedom from" hunger is not illusory, though no one would define a good life as consisting solely of the state of not being hungry. When the law focuses on "freedom from," it's not always purporting to be a complete sense of freedom -- often it's agnostic about the "freedom for" that follows from, and is made possible by, the "freedom from." That agnosticism is not always a bad thing. </p>