Give Me… Liberty?
Licentious liberty misunderstands the constitutional, classical, and Christian definition of freedom.
Ted Capozzi is an undergraduate student at Colby College in Maine.
In his essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill advances the following: “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” While it may sound lovely to allow man to simply exercise his freewill, uninhibited by the restraint of stale traditions and the scrutiny of fellow man, further inquiry shows the logical ends of Mill’s proposition to be downright abominable.
Mill’s thesis leads to error on many fronts, such as on those of politics and theology. However, Mill’s thesis not only leads to errors but also perverts the very thing it seeks to preserve, namely liberty. The failures of liberalism and its perversion of liberty can be seen most clearly in the very evils of our age. We live in a time where governments sanction suicide, men want to be women, and abortions are considered a “right.” In the West, these are seen as simple choices which individuals are entitled to make, but do these in any way constitute the essence of “liberty?” Indeed, the idea that the above are ways of exercising “liberty” is plainly false, and these things merely lead to the enslavement of man.
In each of these cases, it takes very little to see how evil is promulgated through apparent goods (do keep in mind, I happened to choose sanctioned suicide, transgenderism, and abortion but you could easily replace them with any number of contemporary examples). Assisted suicide not only shows how we value individuals based on their utility, but further presents a false “escape” for the depressed; cross-dressing and transgenderism are ways for men and women to give into fetishes and insecurities; abortion grants “convenience” at the expense of human life.
Of course, to tend to the elderly and give hope to the depressed would be too difficult; giving those confused by transgender ideology would be too “harsh;” taking on responsibilities and cultivating virtue through childbearing would be simply exhausting and far too laborious. Feeding into man's opposition to complete arduous tasks, these false liberties do not lead man towards his proper ends, rather, they satisfy base desires.
Critics argue against supposedly ridiculous examples, and being liberal does not mean you condone such evils. On the contrary, it seems that both strict and softer versions of liberalism are bound to reach similar ends. While the softer liberal may not hold human reason as the highest authority, he ultimately licenses other men to do so via civil law that rejects religious preference and conception of the common good. When you allow men to submit to no power outside of themselves, what do you expect other than immorality?
Given we are in the penitential season of Lent, fasting seems an appropriate way to illustrate how moderns view liberty. The errors of our times will say that the man who fasts is oppressed by religious dogma and ought to free himself by dining as he likes. Such thinking is wholly backwards. On the contrary, it is the man who eats and drinks without end that has become enslaved by his passions. In constantly surrendering one’s will to desires (including natural ones such as hunger), one is abandoning the ability to make choices independent of those desires. The distinction here is that the man who fasts has a proper temperance such that he can enjoy food as he pleases, whereas the one who constantly allows himself to feast is guided not by reason but by his stomach.
It seems that the tension at hand is about choice. In all fairness, it appears that both moderns and those holding a more classical view of liberty desire just that: choice. If so, how do we arrive at such radically different positions? Pope Leo XIII states in his encyclical, Libertas Praestantissimum: “Since everything chosen as a means is viewed as good or useful, and since good, as such, is the proper object of our desire, it follows that freedom of choice is a property of the will.” Following Leo, the will ultimately acts on what it believes to be good. Ok, so far so good? Not so fast.
The consideration we must make is exactly what do individuals hold to be good? Students attend class because they believe it will help them achieve academic excellence — that is, it is good to attend class. However, disillusioned young men commit suicide for the same reason — they believe it to be good. The question I ask liberals is precisely this: is it possible that some things aren’t good? Harkening back to our previous examples, it appears that man can make choices which are not conducive to his flourishing — precisely the opposite effect, in fact. In such cases, when acting on such desires, one is not free but is instead drowning in their own desires.
While false liberties cause man to act irrationally, largely following impulses, true liberty leads man to his proper ends. To quote Pope Leo, once again, “Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself.”
In working towards a restoration of true liberty, we are not merely playing a game of semantics. Rather, we must look to dignify the immense beauty and gift of choice. When we give into vices and allow the will to act without restraint, our ability to reason begins to melt away. Liberty is what allows you to pursue the very ends you were made for.
While we can, let’s make the most of it.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider becoming a patron of our publication! Your enthusiasm and support means a lot to all of us at The American Postliberal — and we promise we’ll work hard for your investment in our project.
 | A guest post by
|