Restrictions on Primal Freedom

It is not just biology that teaches us that man is a social being. A person can only make use of his bodily and spiritual assets in a society with other people. It is pointed out that man can remove himself only after maturity from the community under particularly favourable conditions and withdraw as a hermit, he then lives further on from the spirit which he received in society. We remember the sentence written by Aristotle[100] according to which a being that did not require society, would more or less not be a human being.

The most influential philosophers are agreed that the natural purpose of man is to live socially. Alone, no man would be in the position to lead his life in a way that would fulfil his purpose[101]. Suarez writes:[102] “Homo est animal sociabile, nature sua postulans vitam civilem et communicationem cum aliis hominibus.“ While the Catholic natural law doctrine sees more in the association of humans the reason of unification[103], the philosophers of the enlightenment think that no direct force drove humans towards States; instead it was the intention to avoid further trouble through the man.[104] The real reason why humans give up their freedom is the fear of other humans. The best protection against dangers from others threatening life, freedom and ownership is co-operation with others. Finally, people could gain the resources for an adequate life more easily within a community[105]. According to the view of Kant, man must create a civil situation because, in natural situations, he could disturb the inner order of things in such a way that people could never be safe from violence against one another[106], without committing any wrong.[107]

As far as man is not alone and living in a society with others, he must tolerate the limitations to his natural areas of freedom required to achieve a harmonious life together with others. The individual freedom of every single human being finds its limits at the freedom of others which means that the individual right to freedom has reciprocal limitations. Kant says that the freedom of each individual must be able to exist together with that of others “according to a general law”[108]. On the other hand, the state must also respect the freedom of its citizens if it does not want to be a dictatorial state. In the words of Kant, states should not touch the principle of universal human rights because it is a condition for the possibility of the existence of a legal state.

Humans are therefore driven, for whatever reason, to co-operate with others. Society requires from individuals that they renounce their power to exercise their right to freedom partially in favour of others in order to support peaceful co-existence. Therefore they limit themselves.

Date: 2015-02-16; view: 1046