philosophical discussion

very simple question!
Do we gain freedom by obeying the law of by breaking it?

what do you think?
Advertisements

13 thoughts on “philosophical discussion

  1. Broken Wing

    In my opinion, its always right to follow the rules, but sometimes the rules are prejudice against a particular group and you have to break them to fight for your freedom, or we wouldn’t have the civil rights movement or woman rights in the US today 🙂 .

    I have to disagree with you on something. It was not a simple question 😉

    Nice post 🙂

  2. Faten

    I don’t think that we gain freedom by breaking all laws, at least there is still the sense of relief missing..though sometimes i think this saying is true” some rules are made to be broken”

  3. Murtadha

    Broken wing,
    following the rules gives us the confidence and the security but not necessarily the freedom!
    i know it is a very complicated question! and it seems there is no perfect answers for it 🙂
    Thank you for sharing ur thought here 🙂

  4. Murtadha

    Faten,
    ur comment brought up many other issues!
    which rules do we need to break to gain the freedom !
    government laws, religious laws, society laws

    and which rules do we need to follow ? and how do we know that these laws are based on true ground or not!

    and does the law apply for everyone in everywhere in anytime? does it change over time in different location with different people? if so why ? if not ! why not?

    very interesting thing i found in philosophy is that when i try to find an answer for one question, i find my self confronting millions of other questions!

    Thanks again Faten for ur comment!
    i enjoyed ur blog ..:)

  5. ,,

    يا مرتضى لا نستطيع أن نكون أحرار بالتأكيد ,, حتى لو لم نخضع للقوانين ,, سنبقى مقيدين بطبيعتنا ,, !

    سنبقى عبيد أجسادنا ,, وأسمائنا وعوائلنا ,, سنبقى عبيد أنفسنا ,, كيف نتحرر من هذا كله ,, !!

    كيف نتجاوز القوانين التي تجعلنا بشراً ,, !!

  6. Saudi in US

    OK Murtadha,

    You managed to throw another tough one to ponder.

    Besides the obvious issue of “is a person free if s/he lives under anarchy”. I want to farther the discussion to practicality.

    I will take an approach by separating gaining new freedoms from retaining existing ones. Also, separating individual gain from social gain.

    It is seldom that an individual will gain new freedoms by challenging the laws. Quite the opposite the person will likely end up not retaining existing freedoms s/he enjoyed as authorities will jail him or society will shun him.

    However, it is the acts of individuals that sacrifice their freedoms by disobeying rules that are behind the greatest advancements of freedoms in society.

    Now back to the Anarchy issue. Of course a person is totally free, if there is no authority. However, an individual or a group of individuals can infringe on the freedoms of others. In these situations the more powerful will win. So that introduces the idea of power structure and more power can be attained through alliances, hence new authorities will develop and consequently the anarchy situation will dissolve. The new authority will develop rules to apply to everyone they can control. Thus limiting their freedoms. This is the primary reason anarchy will not exist in any human society and will always be a theoretical concept.

  7. Murtadha

    اهلا بالاستاذة شيماء
    الا تتفقين معي بأن الانسان يكون عبداً بختياره ؟
    مشكلة موضوع الحرية انه موضوع منفتح ومعقد…
    فقد تكون حراً وانت في اعظم مواضع العبودية!

  8. Murtadha

    Saudi in US,
    always u add something new into the discussion!
    let me ask you thins question!
    if laws are something essential for our freedom, what guarantee us that these laws will be used against us?
    for example, the freedom of speech!
    if we are assuming that everyone has the freedom of speech as long he doesn’t hurt anybody,then we will be in problematic situation! some people would get hurt and sensitive for any words that we may say! and so should that stop us from speaking it?

    if everyone us has his own definition of freedom ( which actually does) how can we have laws that assure the freedom of everyone of us?

  9. Saudi in US

    Murtadha,

    “if laws are something essential for our freedom, what guarantee us that these laws will be used against us?”

    I would not use the word essential as it implies required. I think laws are a result of the evolution of alliances which produce social structure which in turn produce political systems. Laws actually evolve as soon as alliances form and are imposed by these alliances. They may not be written or codified, but they exist and are enforced even in a small microcosm of only a few individuals forming an alliance. Think about a small street gang. Even within that small group there are rules (code for laws) where the individuals in the gang have to follow or suffer the consequences.

    For your second question, of course laws are used against us. No matter how good a system of laws is, you will find something that limits your freedoms. I personally find speed limits restrictive 🙂 However, like in any complex situation where there are many different interests to keep in check you have to find a balance that insures individuals have the proper security (as the major benefit of laws) and enough freedoms without effecting such security. The other part that is essential is the development of a process that allows for changes to keep that balance. This second part is the major difference between what we consider free societies as you see in the West and totalitarian rule.

    Regarding freedom of speech, I think freedom of speech should be absolute for 3 primary reasons:

    1) Speech whether oral, performed in art form, written, etc. is the manifiestation of thoughts to the outside world. Nothing could be more restricting of freedom than discouraging expression of a person’s ideas.
    2)Words can hurt definitely, but it is subjective. There are no measurements that can be used to define it in an agreeable fashion across the board. Also, you can also avoid them if you want. Example if something you do not agree with is written, you do not have to read it.
    3) Freedom of speech is one of the essential tools for the process of balance I talked about earlier to work.

    “if everyone us has his own definition of freedom ( which actually does) how can we have laws that assure the freedom of everyone of us?”
    This question is more political than philosophical :). In nations that recognize the rights of individuals, this concept was taken into consideration in the development of constitutions. For example in the US the first 10 amendments to the constitution are named the Bill of Rights. The purpose of those amendments is to provide the supreme definition of individual freedoms in the land. Many countries have similar constitutional sections to define the rights of a citizen.

  10. Murtadha

    Saudi in US:
    how do you come up with these great answers:)
    it is really hard to challenge you though 🙂

    anyway, i wanna ask you another questions, just so that the readers will understand deeply your great points

    1)
    let assume that someone in the street say something really bad about (saudi in us) or his family, something that is totally fake and untrue!
    would we say that he has a freedom of speech to say whatever he wants ?

    2)
    Muslims protest against Denmark’s cartoon, christian protest against some liberal’s speech.

    do we think that that both religion are trying to kill the freedom of speech !

  11. Saudi in US

    Murtadha,

    On the first question the rational answer is that, yes it is talk and I should ignore it. Actually, I have no recourse under the laws in the US against it unless the lies produce material impact that can be measured financially. Hence I can sue the person under Civil Law if I can substantiate the lies and their impact.

    However, there is a different approach for that question. Say I am bigger physically and know martial arts. Or I have some bruiser buddies. The person can risk that I will apply a different set of rules to the him Hence, I can limit his/her freedom of speech under this scenario. This is related to the earlier discussion of limiting freedoms through alliances.

    We deal with many layers of rules similar to the one I described above even outside of governmental authority on a daily basis. Companies, parents, clubs, etc. all create rules that limit our total freedom.

    The second question is easy. Yes all religions limit freedom of speech.

  12. Murtadha

    Saudi in US,

    your are a library by yourself 🙂

    thank you so much for your thoughtful answers

  13. pam lofamia

    Freewill has been given to us by God and so long as He exists…there remains freewill. Laws are made because of man being so stubborn..they are guidelines and whoever breaks it will receive its consequences. This is more of a societal norm issue again. Humans are given the highest form of intelligence to be above all God’s creation but not above Him..yet we are given the freewill to decide on our own yet knowing wat wud be the later consequences of our decisions…

    Cn we make a Law stating out of this…just kidding!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s