University of Virginia Library

What Other Goals Are Valued?

Freedom In Society Examined

By David Miller

Mr. Miller is a third year graduate student in
Political Theory.

Lawyers state that a curb on TV violence,
no matter how beneficial to children, would
abridge freedom of expression. A prominent
lobbying group emphasizes that the right to
bear arms is one of our fundamental
"freedoms." A hippie in San Francisco feels
that he should be free to pick the flowers in a
public park.

Common to all three examples is a reference
to freedom. Implicit in each example is a
competing value.

Of course, everyone would probably admit
that decisions must often be made between one
value and another. But, for some reason, when
freedom is one of these values, some segments
of our society believe that there can be no
conflict. To these people, the radical freedom
of the individual is the overriding goal of
society. Thus, even the most sincere humanists,
in opposing such issues as obscenity, use of
hard drugs, unrestricted access to guns, TV
violence, even crime, find themselves attacked
by one group or another as being against
freedom.

That freedom is the primary goal of society
seems historically untenable. There was a time
in the distant past when men did possess
unbridled freedom; yet they gave up this
unbridled freedom to form society. Why?

The obvious reason would be that while man
certainly values freedom, he values other goals
as well. Logically, it was these other goals
which give the rational behind man's forsaking
absolute freedom for society.

Adam Smith believed that man's gregarious
nature led him to seek community with other
men. Thomas Hobbes saw the state of nature as
a state of war, and believed that man had been
glad to rid himself of his freedom to gain the
security of civilization. It is possible that man
formed society to perform tasks which one
alone could not. Man may have formed society
to gain added power to face a hostile world.
Community, security, power; these are three
goals which may have led man to form society.

Man has other goals. Happiness is one which
many would rank with freedom. Jeremy
Bentham, attempting to be entirely scientific,
concluded that man naturally seeks pleasure
and avoids pain. He did not say that man seeks
freedom and avoids limitations. The honest
thinker cannot smooth over possible conflicts
between freedom and happiness by assuming
that "freedom is happiness." Some psychologists
and sociologists have found that too
much freedom can make some people unhappy.
Emile Durkheim's work, in fact, correlated a
rise in suicides with increased individual
freedom.

Within society, justice seems as often desired
as freedom. As much as we are concerned to
live with few fetters to our actions, we are also
concerned that the benefits and penalties of
society are distributed in a fair way. Equality is
an American goal which can be subsumed under
justice. I would suggest that the key to the
Negro Revolution lies with the goals of justice
and equality, and not, strictly speaking,
freedom.

Love is another, oft-mentioned goal of man.
Sadly, perhaps, to some, this goal is also to
some extent in conflict with freedom. The test
of love is our responsibility to others. Where
there is responsibility, there is no absolute
freedom.

There are other goals and values which could
be listed as belonging to this society or that,
but that would be belaboring the point. The
point is that issues cannot always be settled
alone according to whether they promote or
limit individual freedom. Following these who
see issues in this simplistic way is likely to do
serious harm to other values that we hold dear.

What then is the meaning of freedom in
society? It would seem true that absolute
individual freedom and society are incompatible.
But this does not mean that a high level
of individual freedom cannot be attained within
society.

What level of freedom would this be? My
own suggestion would be the maximum amount
of individual freedom which can be sustained
within society without seriously damaging
other goals. The amount of freedom would
depend on a society's goals and values. Without
any metaphysical ideal, it is impossible to set
forth any scheme of societal goals and values
applicable to all societies everywhere. (My
apologies to those who claim to have discovered
such a ranking).

If freedom is to have real meaning, the goals
and values of society must be common ones,
freely chosen by everyone equally. This means
that goals and values would probably change
over time. What is important is that all should
have a meaningful voice. Practically, it would
mean that neither the old Establishment nor
the New Left could make society entirely to
their liking. This concept of freedom would
probably neither include the "freedoms"
enjoyed by monopolists in a "free economy,"
nor the license demanded by some student
radicals. Individual freedom cannot be allowed
to reach the point where the freedoms of some
deny the legitimate freedom of others. Then
freedom becomes injustice.

Freedom is a goal or value which must be
balanced with others. Freedom is not "the"
issue of the day, although it is one of them.

The big issue of the day, including all the
points made by Negroes, hippies, "straights,"
doves, hawks, rich, and poor, is the age-old
question Tolstoy posed - "What shall we do,
how shall we live?" The role and extent of
individual freedom is one part of the broader
question of what type of society we shall have.
To answer this question, we need to discover
and order those goals and values which we have
in common: The need to know what we really
do value and want is the problem we are facing.
Naturally, the give-and-take of democracy is
necessary before any consensus will be created.
But the important thing is that we deal with the
problem without resort to extremism or
simplistic slogans or formulas ... and that it is
"we" who decide.