Must we sacrafice our freedom in order to live in society? And if so, is the sacrafice worth it?
Printable View
Must we sacrafice our freedom in order to live in society? And if so, is the sacrafice worth it?
I think it's best to find a balance. A big system requires a beurocracy in order to operate properly, which is confining; however, living without anyone is impractical, because humans are social and need other humans (not just emotionally, but also for safety and resources). Heading towards one extreme or the other isn't the best idea, better to find a nice middle ground.
I agree with you. I think one must find that balance in order to lead a happy life.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I do not think so ... But we must endure terobles >>> to live
It also depends on where you are, what kind of society you're living in. One doesn't need to sacrifice personal freedom equally everywhere. So, getting that balance is also not equally easy, or for that matter difficult, everywhere. You might be needed to make too much of a sacrifice in one society and not a sacrifice at all in another. Besides, depending on the kind of person you are it might be more, or less, of a sacrifice for you than the others in the same society. As for the question whether the sacrifice is worth it or not, that's relative too. It might be in certain circumstances, might not be others.
I think social contract theory and Hobbs Leviathan cover this dilemma. In this sense the term sacrifice is framed quite differently.
http://sociologyindex.com/social_contract_theoy.htm
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by k.brignell
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by k.brignell
That was easy, wasn't it?
I will expand to the extent that I firmly believe our society is actually the architect of our downfall as a species, thus making it definitely the wrong option.
Hunter-gatherers was our lot, but no, some smart arse had to go and discover agriculture.
The freedom sacrificed is evident every working day during rush hour.
In society we must sacrifice some of our freedoms presumably and ideally for other ones. 7000 years ago in some places it may have taken 30 minutes to walk to a water hole and 30 minutes to walk back, not to mention that your water might not even be sanitary. Now we can turn on the tap just like that if we desire to do so; this frees up an hour of our day. Similar examples exist with other resources.
Of course you have to look at the society – was society all that beneficial to the Russians in 1917?
Considering we all have natural propensities to some degree to be mutualistic and altruistic towards each other, society’s existence is necessitated by our nature. Whether our nature works for or against us is another question, though I’d assume it works for us.
I agree that freedom must be sacraficed in order to live in a society. Do I believe that the giving up freedom is worth living in a society no. The reason being is that society tends to focus more on the group which then may restrict what you do. The majority live in a society and so I say that as a group we have no choice but to tolerate the cost of our freedom and find a perfect balance of both having freedom while still being in a society.
For me the question has to do with what freedoms would be sacrificed. I don't really like to rate freedoms on a scale of least to most important, but I do believe in "inalienable rights" which no situation can abrogate. The problem for me comes with ascertaining what those rights are and their parameters.
Naturally, when the right is one that effects me and that I feel strongly about, it seems inalienable, but my neighbor's rights, though I may profess to respect them, aren't as black and white.
I might feel very strongly about an individual's right to complete freedom of speech, but be apathetic or ambivalent about gun-control, because I view it as more of a potential threat. I might feel very strongly about religious liberty, but feel that a fundamentalist Mormon's desire to be a polygamist is motivated by something other than religious principle and can thus be prohibited.
Freedoms are restricted formally and informally through laws, mores, and norms. Not all of these are positive for an individual though presumably some or most are - if not directly then indirectly - and it is impossible to give a universal yes or no answer to the second part of your question. Also, individuals and societies are too varied for the question to even be answered. Which society are we talking about? Which individual?
"Inalienable rights" are themselves restrictions on freedom. The "right to life" (for example) means nothing other than an obligation on the part of others not to kill you. This restricts their freedom. The "right to life" does not (and can not) protect one from tornadoes, cancers, and sunamis. Instead, it simply restricts the freedom of other people to kill you.Quote:
Originally Posted by L.M. The Third
All "rights" restrict freedom. The right to free speech (for example) restricts the freedom of other people to punish you for what you say. So anyone who belives in "rights" necessarily believes in restricting freedom.
You've simply stated a technical improvement. What does the invention of taps have to do with losing freedom in society?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Are you talking about the communist society? Well, the millions of people who spontaneously rose to tear down the Czarist society certainly thought it was good. Do you realise that just a few decades before 1917 landowners could still own serfs? That literacy was practically nil. Russia was still in the middle ages in 1917? 40 years after the revolution, Russia sent the first man into space. Since you're so fond of water taps and other inventions, surely you admire that.Quote:
Of course you have to look at the society – was society all that beneficial to the Russians in 1917?
They're an accouterment fostered under the aegis of society? Like all other technologies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Heteronym
The answer is obvious. Without the infrastructure necessary to pipe water into all of the homes that have taps, the taps would be useless. The infrastructure is supported by taxes, which are mandatory. If you don't pay your taxes, you will be handcuffed and carted off to prison. Hence the loss of freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heteronym
In fact, two competing theories speculate about the origin of "civilization". One of these suggests that the complicated political and class structures that constitute civilization (and that entail some loss of freedom) developed in river valleys surrounded by deserts (the Indus, the Nile, the Tigris) because they facillitated large scale irrigation projects. So the development of public water works (ioncluding taps) led to slavery, conscripted labor, and the other less egregious losses of freedom associated with living in civilized countries.