Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Are freedom and practicality mutually exclusive?

Rate this topic


daniel
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope your quoting of what I said was not aimed to dispute my statements...your abridged quote changes my meaning more than a little bit! :blush:
I did not intend to change the meaning of your quote. The reason I showed your quote as I did was to show that you were arguing about the cigarettes and why someone would not identify that cigarettes were bad.

Since no one would argue that the person knows that cigarettes are bad, the issue is not related. I do not believe the person is in denial over the effects of tobacco.

Pardon me, and I will not use the ellipses in such a circumstance again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I get your point.

How can a man do what he knows is unquestionably bad for him? If a man acts contrary to his best interests as he sees them, then something other than his rationality must be causing the actions (it's irrational to not pursue one's values?), hence such a man is not free?

Is this not determinism by another name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this not determinism by another name?

I took it as such, with emphasis on the "dilemma" of how could one choose to do something they know to not be in their best interests if they are free.

Of course, I don't speak for daniel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man is driving to the airport to catch a flight to a very important meeting that he wants to go to; it will help his career. However on the way he diverts his drive to buy cigarettes. Is he free? Is he not a prisoner to his irrational self? Is he not divided? Should not someone interfere? Does interferance always lead to dictatorship?

Nobody can be a prisoner of themselves because (outside the mentally disabled) every man is in complete volitional control of his body. If another human being forced him to become addicted to cigarettes (using physical force or blatant fraud) then his freedom is in danger, otherwise it is his own lack of integrity that keeps a man from acting according to his alleged values.

Or take this example: Are British people free to go to the Bahamas? There is no law against it, but few can afford it. So is it freedom (after all it's not practical)?

Edit - Corrected, in the future please use proper grammar. - Felipe

If there is no human intiating force to prevent a British citizen from going to the bahamas then they are free to go there. To say otherwise would be a confusion of the metaphysical and the man-made. It is a metaphysical fact that the bahamas are far away from Britain and are therefore difficult to reach and require an enormous amount of energy to travel to. This is unconditional and outside the realm of ethics. It is only man-made obstructions that can inhibit freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...