The church defines freedom as the power rooted in reason to make a choice.
This type of definition seems somewhat convoluted, but when examined a little more closely, it reveals a lot about what freedom truly is and what it truly requires. In order to be free (fully) one requires two things: intellect and the power to make the choice they decide upon. In other words, every free decision and action are brought about by the use of our inner freedom (the ability to reason, identify the good, and choose whether or not to pursue it) and our external freedom (the actual ability to act). If either is compromised, we are arguably less free, and consequently less human.
This notion in turn reveals a lot about what it means to be human and how our free will is wrapped up in our humanity. As noted in earlier dialogue, the reason that morality applies to humans, and solely humans, is because of the nature of their rational soul. Humans are the only animals that have the ability to identify the good and consequently to decide whether or not to act in favor of it or against it. This rational soul is comprised of two components: freedom and intellect. When God breathed the breath of life into Adam he bestowed upon him the ability to reason, which in turn allowed him to identify his own humanity and also the fact that he was alone, but he also bestowed upon him a freewill that was much different than his animal counterparts. Adam had the ability to act against his survival if he so chose. We can better understand this when we examine the directive that Adam and Eve should not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Ultimately, they were encouraged against it, but God left them free to do as they pleased. The reason that evil occurs is because we are loved and our freewill in prioritized above all else. And as a result, out of pride and disobedience (as well as a brief dip into the second stage of moral development) Adam and Eve chose to act against God's will and pursue their own.
The result of Adam and Eve's decision was their banishment from the garden, and analogously, this reveals a great deal to us about the relationship between our actions and our freedom. In other words, we learn that so long as we do the good, our freedom remains intact. However, if we choose to not do the good, our freedom is compromised. This same notion can be seen in our daily lives. If you break the law to a severe enough degree, you end up in prison. And in the same vain, if you find yourself addicted to drugs or alcohol, you lose the ability to function without them. You can no longer wake up in the morning and choose not to do those things; you have forgone your freedom in the midst of bad decisions.
Understanding this is incredibly important as we examine two elemental principles: It is in our nature to do good and when we fail to do the good, our freedom is impacted. We know this based, once again, on the nature of our soul. Because it is comprised of freedom and intellect, we are able to conclude that the decisions we make are also meant to support our freedom and intellect. They are meant to protect our freedom and grow our intellect and reason. Furthermore, every bad decision that negatively impacts intellect or freedom is theoretically against our nature. Therefore, if bad decisions take away our freedom and interrupt our intellect, while good decisions support our freedom and grow our intellect, one could argue that it is in the nature of our soul to do the good and avoid evil (i.e. the lack of the good that should be there by nature.)
Foundational Moral Principles Unit 2:
1. Doing good is in our nature because it supports our freedom and intellect, failing to do good goes against our nature in that it threatens those elements.
When we understand this to be the case, it further reveals a number of things about freedom, actions, and the morality associated with it. Because we, as humans, have the ability to identify the good and choose whether or not we pursue it, that also means that any action we perform voluntarily has a moral component. Therefore, if we have to employ our internal freedom and make a choice, then we are also able to determine whether or not that choice was moral. However, this notion carries with it a certain complexity. Remember, there is a difference between morality and accountability. And since that is the case, someone could theoretically do something morally bad, but not be accountable for it. In a state of duress, it is possible for all accountability to be removed. However, that does not mean that every state of duress will remove accountability in its entirety. Accountability is circumstantial; morality is not. For this reason, we are left with two more moral principles:
2. Every choice that requires freedom has a moral component.
3. Bad actions are always bad; however, duress might make someone less accountable.
So how are we to become holy? How should we be set apart? Become the best version of ourselves?
Well... theoretically through the development of our rational soul, or our conscience. If we want to remain free and develop intellectually, then we have no choice but to align our conscience with the truth so as to accomplish that goal. To do anything else leaves us in jeopardy. And therein lies the primary difference between a true conscience and a erroneous one. When one evaluates every decision in regard to the truth (that which does no harm to self or others) and makes sure that their decisions are not influenced by societal influence, they in turn grow in intellect and retain their freedom. When we allow society to influence us and convince us that there is sin in something that there isn't (scrupulous conscience); or that there is no sin when there actually is (lax conscience); or worse yet, that we do not need to evaluate at all and we should make decisions strictly based on what we believe is right (certain conscience), then we often compromise our freedom and distort our intellect. And those are hard states to come back from. It is difficult to free yourself from societal restraints, and sometimes even more difficult to free yourself from your own restraints.
However, Kohlberg argues that if we dedicate ourselves to the development of our moral conscience then we can arrive at a place where we base our decisions solely on the good and thereby develop intellectually while simultaneously keeping our freedom in tact. However, he also asserst the following claims :
1. It is unlikely that we find ourselves in the same stage of moral development regarding all decisions that we make.
Ex. We speed if we know we won't get caught (1), we give into peer pressure and party even when it is illegal (3), but we treat our grandparents with compassion and kindness, sometimes even giving up our time to spend it with them (6).
2. Unfortunately, some people will never graduate beyond the brutal cycle of being stuck in the second and third level of development. They establishes a life of taking or giving and never break free of it.
3. We should all strive to be sixes in every decision we make. But in order to do so, we must honestly assess what is good (that which does no harm to self or others) and do it.
Finally, as we blend these concepts into one theme from unit 2, it might just be that our quest for holiness (to be set apart as the best version of ourselves) is best achieved by the aligning of our conscience to the truth and the development of our morality toward to objective good. In other words, we will be set about by our constant dedication to go the good, even if we have to endure ridicule and persecution in the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment