Freedom
What is happiness?
Happiness is a state of mind, where the person who is happy is in a state of reasonable satisfaction as to the course of their life. This may be because certain goals have been achieved, or are on track to being achieved, or may be because circumstances out of a person's control have precipitated a sense that everything is good in the world. Happiness can be brought on by material, spiritual, or emotional stimuli. The one thing about happiness that can be clearly defined amongst individuals is that it is defined from within. A person must define and accept the terms of their own happiness in order to be happy.
Think about it for a minute. Are you unhappy right now? Consider your life. Think of people who, in your own estimation, are doing "better" than you. Then think of someone who is "worse off" than you. Now, put the better-off person in your mind's eye. Picture them, in their better-off state, as unhappy with their life. Do the same with the worse-off person, except this time, make them happy. See how relative happiness is?
Ram Doss, in his book Remember, Be Here Now, makes the argument that the key to having a good life is not to overburden yourself with responsibilities, expectations and regret. Live as simply a life as you can, and do not become despondent with what comes. It is when you set up yourself with excessive expectations and false needs that you create the possibility for failure and regret.
The problem with this line of thinking is this truism: Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Let's say you follow, like Ram Doss did, the full extent of his philosophy. You would probably end up like a monk. If you avoided opportunities for the sake of avoiding regret, you would never ask that pretty girl who smiled at you out on a date. Yes, she might not have meant anything by it, and you might be embarrassed; she might be psychotic and cause you endless grief. She might also be the love of your life, and bear your children. If everybody did like Ram Doss, we'd die of in a few generations.
So happiness is best thought of as being what you define as goals to feel well with the course of your life. Sometimes, to be happy, you will need to go through periods of unhappiness. You may have to take some risks. You may also have to modify your personal goals and let the past go. Which brings us to freedom.
What is freedom? Total freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. See something you like? Take it. Feel like doing something? Just do it. Total freedom doesn't know what ethics and morals are. (Feel like having sex with the pretty girl mentioned above? Rape her, says Total Freedom.) Total freedom becomes chaos and evil very quickly, which is why many countries, particularly countries which distain liberal democracy, also distain freedom.
Total freedom is a dangerous thing, and most sane people do not want it. When people refer to freedom, they usually mean a conditional state of freedom. So, what is this "freedom" that we in the West define, and seem willing to fight and die for?
Thomas Jefferson talked about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in his Declaration of Independence. These may seem to be three distinct entities, but they are actually highly linked, and define what we in the West term "freedom." Western-style freedom is the ability to be free so long as what you are doing does not impinge on the rights of others to pursue their own happiness. This, inverted, defines the purpose of ethics, morals, and laws, and defines the purpose of government. The laws, ethics and morals of a Western-culture society is shaped around defending the right of people to have maximum freedom, while not stripping others of their rights to freedom. Thus, people in Western culture must also have strong ethics in order for the society to succeed as a whole. Without strong ethics, there is not a powerful entity above someone to prevent them from doing wrong, just a government that punishes them after the fact.
The definition of where the line is drawn on freedom is an ongoing process, which is the basis most of what people in the West gripe about. It is also much of the basis for what non-Western cultures, particularly Islamic Fundamentalists and Asian non-democracies, see as the problem with Western culture.
Islamic Fundamentalists and Asian non-democracies seek to strip individual freedom to the point to which people act morally whether they choose to or not. Where they differ is that Islamic Fundamentalists seek to return to a time where all was right with the world and right with God. Asian non-democracies seek a future in which large groups of people can life in peace and prosperity, managed by those who have proven their worth to lead, not chosen by the whims of people who don't know any better. In this, the Asian model is the better and more realistic, but both have the same problem. They force morality, with the belief that most people will not choose to act morally on their own.
This belief is wrong, and in fact, has been proven to false scientifically. In his book "Freakonomics," economist Steven D. Levitt points to a study done by a former economist who turned entrepreneur. This man decided to go into business selling bagels and cream cheese at break areas in office buildings. He worked on the honor system, and, after some experimentation, created a strategy in which he brought his wares to an office, put a sign and a wooden money box next to the bagels, and came back the next day or so to collect his money and leave more bagels. What he found was that over 90% of all people, when given a perfect opportunity to steal, didn't. (What he also found was that, of those who did steal, most were executives.) There were no cameras set up to catch people and have them shot, and no one was threatened with burial up to their neck or with the loss of hands. People just paid for what they took, because they felt it was the right thing to do.
That, in my opinion, is why Jefferson is right, and Osama bin Laden is wrong. Freedom, when tied to the responsibility of not encroaching on the freedom of others, is a force for making people more ethical. It does not make all people in a society ethical, but when people of a culture which both gives freedom and ties freedom of others to an individual's freedom get the opportunity to be evil, the overwhelming majority of those people will choose not to be evil. This makes all people in the society more free, and potentially, more happy. When a society that forces morality on its people suddenly frees its people, chaos and evil ensue, and terror and ennui reign. Want examples? Look at Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Happiness is a state of mind, where the person who is happy is in a state of reasonable satisfaction as to the course of their life. This may be because certain goals have been achieved, or are on track to being achieved, or may be because circumstances out of a person's control have precipitated a sense that everything is good in the world. Happiness can be brought on by material, spiritual, or emotional stimuli. The one thing about happiness that can be clearly defined amongst individuals is that it is defined from within. A person must define and accept the terms of their own happiness in order to be happy.
Think about it for a minute. Are you unhappy right now? Consider your life. Think of people who, in your own estimation, are doing "better" than you. Then think of someone who is "worse off" than you. Now, put the better-off person in your mind's eye. Picture them, in their better-off state, as unhappy with their life. Do the same with the worse-off person, except this time, make them happy. See how relative happiness is?
Ram Doss, in his book Remember, Be Here Now, makes the argument that the key to having a good life is not to overburden yourself with responsibilities, expectations and regret. Live as simply a life as you can, and do not become despondent with what comes. It is when you set up yourself with excessive expectations and false needs that you create the possibility for failure and regret.
The problem with this line of thinking is this truism: Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Let's say you follow, like Ram Doss did, the full extent of his philosophy. You would probably end up like a monk. If you avoided opportunities for the sake of avoiding regret, you would never ask that pretty girl who smiled at you out on a date. Yes, she might not have meant anything by it, and you might be embarrassed; she might be psychotic and cause you endless grief. She might also be the love of your life, and bear your children. If everybody did like Ram Doss, we'd die of in a few generations.
So happiness is best thought of as being what you define as goals to feel well with the course of your life. Sometimes, to be happy, you will need to go through periods of unhappiness. You may have to take some risks. You may also have to modify your personal goals and let the past go. Which brings us to freedom.
What is freedom? Total freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. See something you like? Take it. Feel like doing something? Just do it. Total freedom doesn't know what ethics and morals are. (Feel like having sex with the pretty girl mentioned above? Rape her, says Total Freedom.) Total freedom becomes chaos and evil very quickly, which is why many countries, particularly countries which distain liberal democracy, also distain freedom.
Total freedom is a dangerous thing, and most sane people do not want it. When people refer to freedom, they usually mean a conditional state of freedom. So, what is this "freedom" that we in the West define, and seem willing to fight and die for?
Thomas Jefferson talked about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in his Declaration of Independence. These may seem to be three distinct entities, but they are actually highly linked, and define what we in the West term "freedom." Western-style freedom is the ability to be free so long as what you are doing does not impinge on the rights of others to pursue their own happiness. This, inverted, defines the purpose of ethics, morals, and laws, and defines the purpose of government. The laws, ethics and morals of a Western-culture society is shaped around defending the right of people to have maximum freedom, while not stripping others of their rights to freedom. Thus, people in Western culture must also have strong ethics in order for the society to succeed as a whole. Without strong ethics, there is not a powerful entity above someone to prevent them from doing wrong, just a government that punishes them after the fact.
The definition of where the line is drawn on freedom is an ongoing process, which is the basis most of what people in the West gripe about. It is also much of the basis for what non-Western cultures, particularly Islamic Fundamentalists and Asian non-democracies, see as the problem with Western culture.
Islamic Fundamentalists and Asian non-democracies seek to strip individual freedom to the point to which people act morally whether they choose to or not. Where they differ is that Islamic Fundamentalists seek to return to a time where all was right with the world and right with God. Asian non-democracies seek a future in which large groups of people can life in peace and prosperity, managed by those who have proven their worth to lead, not chosen by the whims of people who don't know any better. In this, the Asian model is the better and more realistic, but both have the same problem. They force morality, with the belief that most people will not choose to act morally on their own.
This belief is wrong, and in fact, has been proven to false scientifically. In his book "Freakonomics," economist Steven D. Levitt points to a study done by a former economist who turned entrepreneur. This man decided to go into business selling bagels and cream cheese at break areas in office buildings. He worked on the honor system, and, after some experimentation, created a strategy in which he brought his wares to an office, put a sign and a wooden money box next to the bagels, and came back the next day or so to collect his money and leave more bagels. What he found was that over 90% of all people, when given a perfect opportunity to steal, didn't. (What he also found was that, of those who did steal, most were executives.) There were no cameras set up to catch people and have them shot, and no one was threatened with burial up to their neck or with the loss of hands. People just paid for what they took, because they felt it was the right thing to do.
That, in my opinion, is why Jefferson is right, and Osama bin Laden is wrong. Freedom, when tied to the responsibility of not encroaching on the freedom of others, is a force for making people more ethical. It does not make all people in a society ethical, but when people of a culture which both gives freedom and ties freedom of others to an individual's freedom get the opportunity to be evil, the overwhelming majority of those people will choose not to be evil. This makes all people in the society more free, and potentially, more happy. When a society that forces morality on its people suddenly frees its people, chaos and evil ensue, and terror and ennui reign. Want examples? Look at Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
posted by gemillam at
1:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home