Master T mentioned something about raising some moral questions. I figured I'd lend a hand here as I have a few minutes before bed. These questions are going to come under a couple topics concerning freedom. Feel free to answer using the headers for simplicity, add your own headers, chop, slice, or dice as needed.


Freedom

1) Is freedom simply the ability to act without consequence or the ability to only be judged after action?

2) Can we even define freedom entirely or is it a much more vague concept such as Justice or Compassion which often times have limitations based on situations?

3) If freedom equates to action without consequence can we ever truly be free?

4) Can freedom be defined as "A situation where one is not upheld to any particular standard?"

5) What are the dangers as well as benefits of a Society lacking standards IN YOUR VIEW.

6) Do you view the western society (USA, Canada, UK as examples) as free? If these societies are free what limitations are imposed on those freedoms?

7) What are the benefits of a society based on standards? What are the risks?

8) In a free society is there any duty to other members of that society? If so how far does that duty extend? If there is no duty what are the minimum expectations of members of that society? What are the consequences of failing to meet those expectations? Is this true freedom or simply an illusion?


My Request: Please make no answers more than 2 paragraphs, 10 sentences per paragraph maximum, in length. The exception to this is for number 8, which has many sub questions. No one is enforcing this, but it will make the flow of this so much easier.

_________________
"When you dodge, "I won't let them cut me." If you protect someone, "I won't let them die." If you attack, "I will kill them." Well, can't you see the resolve to kill you in my sword? Urahara Kiskue
۞Ψ۝
░▲░
▲ ▲

1. Depends on what you mean by "consequence". Any action of course has effects, if we are talking as I suspect in legal terms than it is the ability to act in ways that do not infringe upon the rights of other people. Now socially every action has consequences such as ostracism by a particular group of people who may find whatever action a person takes bad. The person is free to do it just as a group is free to ignore him or whatever.

2. Well like any term we have to break down the term which like many words can mean many things to different people.

3. Every action does have a consequence.

4. No, I don't think so. Everyone holds everyone else up to their own subjective standards and then "penalizes" the other for break the "rules". If your hanging out with a friend and see a nasty habit you may hold them to your standard of decency and ask them to not do that around you or just stop talking to them.

5. I don't think any society really lacks standards because it's individual members all have some type of ideas of standards and enforce them in social aspects all the time.

6. I won't speak for Canada and UK but certainly as far as countries go I view USA as atleast freer than many other nations.

7. The benefits of an intersubjective consensus is that people will be better able to understand the perspectives of people around them that will promote levels of harmony within society. The risks is that people will not think for themselves and simply follow specific ideas because the majority of people around them agree with it. I don't think that is totally a risk because it is in a way a time management tool it can become a risk to an individuals reasoning and trust in their own minds. Secondly another risk is when society is willing to use violence to enforce such subjective evaluation either to their own citizens or that of another country. Our history is filled with wars for this type of reasoning by people.

8. The only duty is the person not violate the rights of other people. This is not to say I think that a person shouldn't care about others and try and help other people but it goes to other people dictating the "duties" of another. To this point I'm still waiting on Derek to fulfill his duty of washing my car. anyday now...

Excellent reply. I'm still gonna wait for at least 2 or 3 more to address this before I throw my own ten pence worth in.

_________________
"When you dodge, "I won't let them cut me." If you protect someone, "I won't let them die." If you attack, "I will kill them." Well, can't you see the resolve to kill you in my sword? Urahara Kiskue
۞Ψ۝
░▲░
▲ ▲

I'll get to this soon.

_________________
"I have burned my tomorrows...and I stand inside today...at the edge of the future...and my dreams all fade away..."
- Opening lyrics to the song "BURN MY SHADOW" - By Unkle.

Freedom has nothing to do with getting want you want. It can't be given or won for another, only taken for yourself. It is a state of mind and moral honesty where one realizes and takes responsibility for one's own existence. That existence would include the requirements to stay alive, as well as the direct and repercussitory effects of one's actions. It's not how small or large those effects may be in size, but that one is willing to pay the costs that existence has incurred.

There are no shortages of standards, where "standard" is an official sounding word for "idea". It's only a matter of what degree I am in accord with those ideas. Once again, I must accept the responsibility of living in a system where my vote can be outvoted. The US herself is free. Her people, by in large, are not. But, that is the decision individuals have made for themselves. People want to blame the electoral colleges, but they know that representation is population based yet do not move to districts known for their political proclivity. Yes, you're free to move and vote as you like. No, you shouldn't afford the benefits of living within a city based on local political dynamics after you have voted and thus thrust upon the nation some other dynamic. We sleep in the beds we've made or left disheveled, accept it or not.

I've already defined freedom and covered how ideas work en masse, and of course I'm big on duty. It's a great idea! However, duty isn't the issue but how that duty is enacted. I feel the government's job is to govern, so my suggestion is to start at home and work outward. If people can't be helped in one's current occupation, start a career in the medical field, public service, the military, or the humanities. If one feels compelled to use money and wants to do good (as opposed to just feeling warm and fuzzy), research the organizations; find their percentages between paying the staff, absorption by the costs of the organization itself, and the amount they put directly on the charity.

_________________
There is a difference between a choice and a test.
Want to change the world? There's nothing to it.

This week's (6-Nov-2011) Ashla Knights Blog Talk Radio Program is dedicated to this topic: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1484

_________________
"I have burned my tomorrows...and I stand inside today...at the edge of the future...and my dreams all fade away..."
- Opening lyrics to the song "BURN MY SHADOW" - By Unkle.