All Freedom is Evil!

I am not trolling! I am not against Freedom. I acknowledge that suppression of Freedom is Evil. But Freedom is also Evil.


Freedom is Evil because it guarantees that some individuals will make wrong and harmful choices. Suppression of Freedom is Evil because suppression of Freedom is Evil. Finding the Lesser Evil is an open question in each specific case.


Angels have no Freedom. Their only desire is to serve G-d and fulfill G-d's Will. They are absolutely happy. The Freedom of angels is not constrained or suppressed in any way. They have no desire to act contrary to their nature. I am Jewish, thus some Christians and Muslims will disagree with me on this point.


Humans have limited resources and conflicting interests. Thus any Freedom given to Humans will be used by some in a wrong way. I do not want to make this another thread about Free Speech -- I will discuss some other Freedoms.


Freedom of Ingestion leads many people to harmful practices. Most of my 157 kg are of avian origin. Almost everyone agrees that criminalizing unhealthy diet would be an act of Tyranny. Thus suppression of Freedom by criminalization of unhealthy diet is Greater Evil relative to Freedom of unhealthy diet. Other substances are much more harmful then fat and sugar. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and some light narcotics are an example. Would it be more evil to ban these substances or not? This is debatable ad infinitum. An extreme example of a harmful substance is Fentanyl. It would be much Greater Evil to allow Fentanyl to be sold then to prohibit it's use.


Freedom to own dangerous objects leads to people using these objects to harm themselves or others. Some harm is intentional, such as assault with a weapon. Some harm is accidental, such as motorcycle crash. The Criminally Insane are frequently forbidden to use any pen, spoon, fork, or toothbrush which can be made into a stabbing weapon. Normal and free people must have much more freedom. Almost everyone agrees that prohibiting free and normal people from using knives and cars would be wrong. Suppression of Freedom by criminalization of knives and cars is Greater Evil relative to Freedom of citizens owning knives and cars. Motorcycles have accident fatality rate which is about 30 times as high as cars. Guns have been used in 572,000 murders and suicides in USA 1999-2016. I strongly support banning guns, while many strongly disagree. I would not oppose banning motorcycles. This is debatable ad infinitum. Almost everyone agrees that no private citizen should own any weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear reactor, or a large airplane. Almost everyone agrees that drunk driving or driving without license should be a crime. It would be much Greater Evil to allow possession of extremely dangerous items and drunk or dangerous driving then to prohibit them.


Freedom to consume and use resources leads people to leave others without resources they need. Each one of us would be happy to be the owner of all resources of Humankind, and even that would not be enough! Anyone's Freedom to use and consume a resource suppresses others Freedom to use and consume that resource. Each Society is faced with the problem of division of resources. Many Wars have been fought for resources. This is a subject of many endless conflicts and arguments. What would be the most fair division of resources? In my opinion, rich people should pay high taxes. In my opinion, everyone should have a right to Food, Shelter, and Medical Care. Many people strongly disagree.


Thus, we conclude that both Freedom and suppression of Freedom are evil. What is the greater Evil? In countless cases it is Freedom. In countless other cases it is suppression of Freedom. In countless more cases this subject can be debated ad infinitum!

 

I'm not evil. So there's that.

I don't look for evil. It's there of course, but not something I think about.

 

God and angels don't exist. All that's a myth to help us feel less helpless because human life is hard.

Nothing is "good" or "evil" absolutely. It's all relative to one's early teachings and acceptance/rejection and application of that information.

There is not point in ranking evils. Choosing the lesser of two evils is STILL choosing evil.

 

I am sorry, I prefer not to debate Religious issues. Most people in USA believe in G-d and The Old Testament.

Sadly Freedom ensures that some people will make wrong choices. Lack of Freedom constrains people.

 

God allows them to make the choices.

 

Creation of Humans and implication of Free Choice can be partially understood by big Rabbis. I can not answer any questions on the subject.

 

Is that in response to my post? If so, your OP is off-topic. YOU brought up God/god/g-d.

P.S. It is difficult to read many of your posts because of your use of capital letters for words that shouldn't be capitalized.

 

Over 80% of people in USA believe in validity of Old Testament. I can not debate the Truth of Old Testament.

I only used angels as an example of perfect existence without lacking or suffering anything. All humans lack something.

 

You aren't debating in any of your posts.

You made a declarative statement in your subject line and did not support it in your OP.

 

My point is that.

1) All Freedom is evil since it guarantees that some people will make wrong choices.

2) Suppression of Freedom is evil.

3) Choosing the Lesser Evil is a difficult and case by case task.

 

Wrong choices aren't necessarily evil. We only learn by making mistakes. It's impossible to grow with them. Growth is positive, therefore "wrong" choices are *opportunities*.

Nope again.

I don't let my kids play in the street so they stay safe.
Restaurants don't serve rotten food so their customers don't get sick or die. (No freedom to have 10 day old spoiled food).
Despite all the desire in the world, a person can't get a professional degree unless they complete education and internships.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

 

Perhaps I am speaking in purely philosophical terms. Humans have limited resources and conflicting interests -- thus we/they must suffer constraints to their Freedom.

 

Only you know in what sense you're speaking. Are you speaking in purely philosophical terms?

 

Freedom is a human construct which Mother Nature ignores. Mother Nature concerns herself with survival, not ideology married to religion.

Evil itself is defined as people making wrong choices, which is our nature, and has been philosophized since before the dawn of civilization. Being human guarantees evil, not modern political doctrine. If you have the time, which I unfortunately don't, here's some scholarship on the concept of evil:

The Concept of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Choosing between evils requires definition. Let's look at Genesis.

Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Romans.

Romans 5:12 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

There are more. So, evil is within us all. I agree. Therefore, trying to control my freedom using your inner nature is seen as evil to my inner nature, thus the greater of two evils. This goes back to Mother Nature, which is concerned with survival.

It's all basic and consistent. Freedom and evil are both human constructs, and when they come into conflict, as they must (dichotomies require competing options), these are invariably a response to our survival instinct, which can manifest itself in both defensive and offensive actions.

We are violent tribal animals. Jane Goodall witnessed a warring chimpanzee tribe attacking, capturing, dismembering and eating a baby chimp from the competing tribe. Was this act evil? Can it be compared to human behavior?

We enjoy more freedom than at any other time in history, though being a human construct, our definitions can vary. If freedom is the ability to survive, which, again, is what ultimately dictates our behavior, then my opinion would seem to be correct. We can define freedom in other ways. For example, if freedom is the ability to live a stress-free, happy healthy life, there are kids living in the Amazon without shoes who are the happiest little kids you could ever see. In this sense, technology can be seen as freedom-negative.

As social animals we will risk our lives in the never-ending fight for survival; both defending and providing for ourselves, our families, our tribes, nations, coalitions and species. We are no different than the bees who die defending the hive, nor the lions who are injured or killed trying to bring down a buffalo. We are violent, like chimpanzees, and peaceful (sex fiends) like bonobos. We are everything all rolled into one.

Your points lack clarity, and seem to be an individual philosophy which discounts the most basic philosophies and nature of human beings.

 

Inanimate objects cannot be evil. Those that view them as evil should not be allowed to possess them. Please turn in your spork!

 

Interesting topic. And good questions.

Freedom (individual and collective) and Democracy are both predicated on the basis that somebody has to make decisions. Freedom refers to personal decisions that can be made on your own or in a small group, Democracy to collective decisions that affect the community. Individual decisions which only affect the individual and nobody else, should be made by the individual. But decisions that affect others need to be made collectively. If the decision affects a large portion of society, the best way to do that is democracy, even though it's far from perfect.

Everybody's freedom ends where the other person's begins. If an action only involves YOU, and nobody else, that's individual freedom. And it should NEVER be suppressed, in my opinion. Period! Anything else may be partially suppressed. But only depending on the circumstances. If an action affects your neighbor, collective freedom comes into play. You and your neighbor need to do the decision collectively. If they do, that freedom should never be suppressed. But when it affects your whole community, then some sort of democratic decision is required.

Anything beyond that is abuse of freedom. And there has to be consequences for infringing on the freedom of others. I don't know that I would call it "evil". Just abusive. But real individual freedom should be absolute. If you decide to end your life, you should have a freedom to do that. But NOT, for example, if you're leaving debt behind. Because that affects others. Oh... and be sure to make arrangements to clean up after yourself. Don't leave your family hanging with funeral costs, or with uncared for children, or with... blood spattered all over the wall. You would be infringing on the freedom of others if you do.

Bottom line, my point is that there is no "evil". There is only abuse.

 

I have never raised an angry hand in my life, yet you still believe my second amendment rights should be suppressed.

 

The concept of law goes back to at least 3000 BCE and Egyptian oral traditions centered around the concept of Ma'at, meaning "balance." The first codification of law was achieved in 2100 BCE by Ur-Nammu of Sumeria. Hammurabi developed and distributed to the public his codex in 1760 BCE Babylon.

The Egyptian concept was a state of reality, which the cosmos perpetually sought - an astute, if unscientific observation for such an ancient civilization. Ur-Nammu was the first to codify "If this, then that" statements which still form the basis for law.

In each of these early traditions the purpose of law was justice, arguably similar to our purpose today.

It is precisely because evil exists that we have been limiting freedom since the dawn of civilization, literally. Golem makes a good point about democracy being the preferred method of determining the definitions of evil and freedom.

We in the West produce far more resources than we need for survival. Our competing interests are among ourselves, for more resources. People in Afghanistan do not produce enough resources to live anywhere near comfortably. So, in this sense, you are correct. Afghanis are stricken with poverty, are subject to extremely limited resources, and a conflict with the West has been initiated by religious extremists, to whom we are evil, which is reflected by their own evilness as seen by us.

It seems you're making an argument for lawful society. Or pointing out an inherent societal reality.

 

And here I thought each person allowed themselves to make their own choices.

 

Freedom is not evil. All people have good and evil in them. Freedom is conceptual, some people will use freedom in a good way and some will use it in a evil way. I have made an assumption, freedom equals free will.

 

No. I believe you are free to join a well regulated militia any time you want. I'm fine with that, so long as it's very well regulated.

 

The biggest evil is not allowing people to make the right choice. This is accomplished by using the people who make the wrong choice as an excuse to take away choice. Once choice is no longer an option, those who prefer to be in charge of others make their way into the position of being in charge of deciding for others. Eventually they make the wrong choices for everyone. The simple fact is that people who care enough to make the right choices for others don't seek to put themselves into a position to have the authority to actually do so.

At least with freedom you retain the right to make the right choice as much as you retain the right to make the wrong choice.

 

Fine, just don't claim you support freedom up to the point of depriving others of theirs. That is not your true position.

 

Mostly yes.

 

In my opinion, suicide is a great sin equal to murder. Human life is precious. Otherwise agree 100%.