"Freedom" a simple, unsuspecting word. Yet, it has been the only agent of war known to man. Be it the fight for freedom to rule or the fight for the freedom of not being ruled.
Freedom in its own right can mean anything for an individual and could be the means to justify any action to one's self. And freedom without perspective is the root of all conflicts. It has to be ingrained in us that our limitless freedom is limited to the extent that it does not encroach on someone else's freedom. We are free to do anything as long as our actions or thoughts do not undermine the freedom of other people to live the same way. And yes, if need be we have to limit our actions to accomodate for others. It is the voilation of others freedom that forces us to set boundaries to human behaviour.
Is this perspective truly the axiom of law today? A law based on the right of freedom be it mental or physical could not be restrictive but rather comforting that you can do as you wish as long as you are not intrusive on others. And to contain oneself is not a bad bargain for protecting your own space, is it?
Freedom is not a right that extends only to our species. It extends to all life forms. But the truth is, we blatantly encroach on the freedom of other species and even of our own for that matter. Our's is a selfish freedom.
We have lived for generations the way we have. We know that we have ruined a lot. If we continue this way we will be free but all alone. We need to seek and respect the freedom of everyone and everything around. We need to be inclusive. The Earth is not just our own birth right.
Ankit Mehta
Posts
3 comments:
very well written!
Hello Ankit
I have commented only on one blog till now, years back --- yours is the second one.
Your thoughts are correct, and well articulated. But then questions arise. What exactly is freedom? Where do we draw the line where the freedom breaches others'? It is true that the quest for freedom without a perspective is the reason behind many conflicts. But then who defines those perspectives? Even the context, by the very nature of how we identify ourselves, take different hues for different people. A recent Science article (Smith et. al., Science, 323(5911) 2009) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5911/215 --- talks about how our perspective differs when we are a part of the situation and when we are not. Our emotions surprise us and take over us when we are into the situation. In this context, the Israelites were not wrong in what they did in Gaza recently.
Therefore, to define perspective has always been a very difficult task. Contexts, social structures and as a consequence, the definition of right and wrong change over time. Therefore, there is always going to be a small minority who will find the assertion of freedom by the rest as restrictive. To maintain peace, however, you might not just need to define freedom and adhere to it, but define it with a definite lack (and perceivably so) of parity. Personal laws for religious minorities in India is an example. You need to define the freedom for various groups distinctly from others. Evidently (and it should be so), laws of freedom will differ for all. Another example is the latest law in British Columbia in Canada that bans polygamy for Mormons --- is that not restrictive considering that the religion allows that? And certainly there is no evidence of any lack of voluntariness amongst the Mormon women. All of these are difficult issues since the definition of "axiom" is different for different people. And therefore, the quest for freedom inevitably ends up stepping on someone else's toes.
And on the side note, I of course completely agree with the absolute lack of freedom we have extended to other species. Forget about want, there is not even a pretense of providing them with the minimum they deserve.
Kshitiz
Thanks for the great input Kshitiz!
You know this is one of the first question everybody asks me when I express this thought of mine. "Who will define what is freedom and what is not?"
And its true whatever we define as freedom is going to be restrictive for some and too much and more for some. I agree with you, the whole nature of the problem is such that one has to curtail ones own freemdom moment it starts seeming as stepping on someone elses. But like I said its a small price one pays for one's own protection.
My idea in part to express this thought was to present the presense of laws as a means to let individuals be all they can be as long as they allow others to do the same.
Another thing is that laws are not absolute for every action/inaction. For example a murder and a death is self defense are looked upon as totally different even if the end action is the same. Thats the reason we have trials where there is a right to express perspectives based on the history of interaction, circumstances of the action and other things.
But all that only happens in case a voilation of freedom is reported.
In all, I believe as long as we judge freedom with respect to not just the fundamental of "live and let live" but also on the overall agenda of that society at a given time we should have a fair law.
In practice, I know these ideas are utopian. But atleast they help me know why things should the way they should be. :)
Post a Comment