Freedom Options

[Killed Bill]

What is it? How can we possibly define it? How can you declare religion as something which "prevents" freedom?

[Emilygreen]

Restricting freedom isn't necessarily bad. I don't want people to have the freedom to kill me or steal my stuff.

[Killed Bill]

Then what is our guideline to what freedom should be?

[Emilygreen]

We should restrict actions which directly harm other people, but give the freedom to do anything else.

[yasmin taha]

We should restrict actions which directly harm other people, but give the freedom to do anything else.

but see then again what i see as protection u may think its harmful.............so freedom is very hard to define

[Yushua]

Freedom, when used to protect people from harm, is not freedom. It is lawfullness. If a society is to exist by freedom, NO law can be passed to restrict it in any way shape or form. Freedom is realizing that there is no true morality in this world, morality, right or wrong, white or black, was set up by mankind. If true peace is to exist, then absolute freedom should be granted to the people. And only with absolute freedom, can we gain absolute knowledge of our lives. What this means is that the artist will not be bound by the censor, the scientist will be not bound by law, and no men shall bow to any king.

[Killed Bill]

We should restrict actions which directly harm other people, but give the freedom to do anything else.

Only directly harm them? What do you mean by that?

[Emilygreen]

Only directly harm them? What do you mean by that?

A boundary needs to be set in order to avoid an ultra-restrictive government resulting from unlimited rules. Most of us don't want an anarchy where anything goes, besides maybe Yushua judging from his post, but neither do we want a state which dictates our every move based on its cost or benefit to society. In extreme cases, trivially harmful activities such as eating cake would be illegal. The ideal would be to allow the most wiggle room possible while still protecting the things we value the most, e.g. our lives, happiness, etc.. I referred to government here, but the same holds for religion. A religion is oppressive if it tilts the balance of freedom and restriction too far in the latter direction. It is too permissive if it tilts the balance too far in the direction of freedom. As some people have already noted in this thread, finding the exact point of balance is difficult. However, we can easily eliminate the polar extremes to find a more happy synthesis between the two opposites.

but see then again what i see as protection u may think its harmful.............so freedom is very hard to define

This isn't a problem of definition but application. Freedom is simply a lack of limitations. The question is when should we place limitations and when should we allow freedom?

[Yushua]

Only directly harm them? What do you mean by that?

A boundary needs to be set in order to avoid an ultra-restrictive government resulting from unlimited rules. Most of us don't want an anarchy where anything goes, besides maybe Yushua judging from his post, but neither do we want a state which dictates our every move based on its cost or benefit to society. In extreme cases, trivially harmful activities such as eating cake would be illegal. The ideal would be to allow the most wiggle room possible while still protecting the things we value the most, e.g. our lives, happiness, etc.. I referred to government here, but the same holds for religion. A religion is oppressive if it tilts the balance of freedom and restriction too far in the latter direction. It is too permissive if it tilts the balance too far in the direction of freedom. As some people have already noted in this thread, finding the exact point of balance is difficult. However, we can easily eliminate the polar extremes to find a more happy synthesis between the two opposites.

but see then again what i see as protection u may think its harmful.............so freedom is very hard to define

This isn't a problem of definition but application. Freedom is simply a lack of limitations. The question is when should we place limitations and when should we allow freedom?

I am not really for anarchy, I believe that if people are given the chance, they will not need or have the want for things such as anarchy, violence, or intolerance. If not governed by a set of rules, and no single entity is there to guide them, they shall act as one. Like insects do in a sort of way, they will simply cast out the individuals who seek to harm the community. Would violence really thrive in a world where everybody can attack the murderers and face no crime sentences for defending themselves? People have the tendency to do the right thing, it is human nature. I just believe that people should not have to bow to any ruler, king nor god, to feel safe in society.

[Killed Bill]

A boundary needs to be set in order to avoid an ultra-restrictive government resulting from unlimited rules. Most of us don't want an anarchy where anything goes, besides maybe Yushua judging from his post, but neither do we want a state which dictates our every move based on its cost or benefit to society. In extreme cases, trivially harmful activities such as eating cake would be illegal. The ideal would be to allow the most wiggle room possible while still protecting the things we value the most, e.g. our lives, happiness, etc.. I referred to government here, but the same holds for religion. A religion is oppressive if it tilts the balance of freedom and restriction too far in the latter direction. It is too permissive if it tilts the balance too far in the direction of freedom. As some people have already noted in this thread, finding the exact point of balance is difficult. However, we can easily eliminate the polar extremes to find a more happy synthesis between the two opposites.

How do you propose we do that?

I believe our limitations and extensions of freedom rely solely upon the ethics you follow. The problem with those who do not have religion is finding a ground for their ethical views, and even if they do, they still cannot deem anything being "too" free or too restricted because there is no actual evidence for it. In other words this society might allow women to walk around half naked because its freedom, but not allow them to walk around nude because that's "too" free. But in Islam its very different and no one can truly say whats free or not.

That wasnt really aimed at you, just the ignorant who believe Islam is oppression because of such laws.

This isn't a problem of definition but application. Freedom is simply a lack of limitations. The question is when should we place limitations and when should we allow freedom?

Indeed. A question which has no agreeable answer, I believe.

[Emilygreen]

How do you propose we do that?

Use legal action to prevent any activity that causes harm in a very apparent and direct way, e.g. murder, rape, theft. Then allow everything else. Religion can be more strict than this, as long as it's not acting as a government within a society.

I believe our limitations and extensions of freedom rely solely upon the ethics you follow. The problem with those who do not have religion is finding a ground for their ethical views, and even if they do, they still cannot deem anything being "too" free or too restricted because there is no actual evidence for it. In other words this society might allow women to walk around half naked because its freedom, but not allow them to walk around nude because that's "too" free. But in Islam its very different and no one can truly say whats free or not.

That wasnt really aimed at you, just the ignorant who believe Islam is oppression because of such laws.

It is not difficult to find an ethical grounding which is not based on religion. Instead of God, morality is based on human values. This is upsetting to some people because values seem so subjective and prone to change. And whose values do we choose? The answer isn't too complicated although admittedly a bit vague. We choose the values which are common to all people, the desire for life, happiness, etc.. These values don't change much even from one culture to another. One might also suspect that what makes one person happy would be radically different from another person's happiness, but this is generally not the case. We all need to be healthy, form positive relationships, be useful, have fun, and feel safe. So what started as something very abstract, i.e. goodness, becomes something very real and attainable. Regardless of religion or culture, we can find a common moral grounding based on these shared values.

I don't have a problem with the restrictions in Islam or in any religion as long as they aren't enforced by law. Regarding nudity, I think that people, women included, should be able to walk around fully nude. Why should we treat our bodies as sexual bombs waiting to go off?

[Killed Bill]

Use legal action to prevent any activity that causes harm in a very apparent and direct way, e.g. murder, rape, theft. Then allow everything else. Religion can be more strict than this, as long as it's not acting as a government within a society.

"Apparent and direct way"

When I first read that I interpreted it as something which is done to directly cause pain/suffrage to someone else. But as I think about it, sometimes murder, rape, theft etc. are done not to cause damage for anyone else but rather for the individual to gain something from it.

For example walking around naked. We could argue that people should be free to do so because its their choice how they present their body. Fair enough. But doing so will cause discomfort (amongst other things) to other people around them. It may not appear that by simply being nude its DIRECTLY affecting someone else, but it is. I hope you see the point im trying to make.

The answer isn't too complicated although admittedly a bit vague. We choose the values which are common to all people, the desire for life, happiness, etc.. These values don't change much even from one culture to another. One might also suspect that what makes one person happy would be radically different from another person's happiness, but this is generally not the case. We all need to be healthy, form positive relationships, be useful, have fun, and feel safe. So what started as something very abstract, i.e. goodness, becomes something very real and attainable. Regardless of religion or culture, we can find a common moral grounding based on these shared values.

But in what terms do we achieve these values? I hope we can agree that modesty is a unanimous value we hold. Modesty to one could be simply be to not burp whilst taking a drink as compared to someone who believes only hijab can bring modesty (just an example). I do agree that we humans objectively hold certain values (e.g respect) but the problem seems to lie on how exactly we practice these values.

I don't have a problem with the restrictions in Islam or in any religion as long as they aren't enforced by law. Regarding nudity, I think that people, women included, should be able to walk around fully nude. Why should we treat our bodies as sexual bombs waiting to go off?

"There is no compulsion in religion"

But that is not to say that people will be free to do as they wish. In an Islamic society it may be feasible for a woman to not wear hijab, but never for her to walk around butt naked. I dont want to be taking my kids to school and having a naked teacher teaching them, do you? When others "freedom" gets out of hand, it violates my freedom.

[Emilygreen]

What I meant by direct was more along the lines of causation rather than intent. Murder causes harm regardless of the killer's motivation.

But doing so will cause discomfort (amongst other things) to other people around them. It may not appear that by simply being nude its DIRECTLY affecting someone else, but it is. I hope you see the point im trying to make.

This is different from the murder example in a couple of ways. First of all, being offended or uncomfortable doesn't count as being harmed. I might find your religion offensive, but I wouldn't say that it harms me directly. Secondly, in the murder example, the killer is still responsible for the murder, despite his intentions. We however are not responsible for other people's reactions when we are only passive participants.

I agree that being nude in our present society would directly affect others. Being nude in public is seen as a sexual act...even an aggressive sexual act and can be extremely offensive. However, why should we punish those who obviously are not being sexually aggressive? A women who chooses to breast-feed her child in public shouldn't be labeled as a sexual predator or a slut. She certainly should not be charged with a crime. I don't think that the human body should be objectified in this fashion. It sends the message to little girls that their bodies are primarily sexual. How young are muslim girls required to start covering up?

But in what terms do we achieve these values? I hope we can agree that modesty is a unanimous value we hold. Modesty to one could be simply be to not burp whilst taking a drink as compared to someone who believes only hijab can bring modesty (just an example). I do agree that we humans objectively hold certain values (e.g respect) but the problem seems to lie on how exactly we practice these values.

Modesty is not a critical value. We can live happily with or without a few burps or hijabs. I agree that when we get into the details things become more complicated, but we are far from this level of refinement. We haven't even managed to stop killing each other yet. This isn't hard to do. We just need to stop killing each other.

But that is not to say that people will be free to do as they wish. In an Islamic society it may be feasible for a woman to not wear hijab, but never for her to walk around butt naked. I dont want to be taking my kids to school and having a naked teacher teaching them, do you? When others "freedom" gets out of hand, it violates my freedom.

I understand what your saying, but I don't think it is the government's place to punish people for simply being in their natural state. We are born naked, there is nothing innately wrong with being nude. If the human body wasn't viewed as sexual, would you still have a problem with your children's school teacher being naked?