Objectives

In this lesson, you will able to:

1)Assess the consequences of one’s actions;

2) Show situations that demonstrate freedom of
choice; and
3) Exercise prudence in one’s choices
 This lesson features the views of freedom: intellectual,
political, spiritual, and economic. To be free is a part
of humanity’s authenticity, a part of our transcendence.
Freedom consists of going beyond situations whether
physical constraints or economic struggles. For
example, some students may be young or poor, but
they can still pursue their dreams of becoming a
doctor, a teacher, or a stage actor.
 1. Aristotle

The power of Volition

Apart from will, the imperative
quality of a judgement of practical intellect is
meaningless. Reason can legislate, but only
through will can its legislation be translated
into action. Practical intellect guides the will
by enlightening it. Will, in fact, is to be
understood wholly in terms of intellect. Will is
linked to the intellect. This is obvious from the
way in which will is rationally denominated.
 The will of humanity is an instrument of
free choice. It is within the power of everyone
to choose from courses of action. This is
borne out by:
 our inner awareness of an aptitude to do
right or wrong;
 The common testimony of all human
beings;
 The rewards and penalties by rulers;
and
 Delivering of praise and blame.
 Moral acts, which are always particular acts,
are in our power and we are responsible for
them. Character or habit is no excuse for
immoral conduct. Attending class is a student’s
responsibility. If a student cut class, then he or
she is responsible for the consequences of his
or her actions such as an accident or low grades.
The student may regret what he or she had
done, but all the regrets in the world will not call
it back. To be morally responsible, the student
should not have cut class in the first place. In
case of moral dilemmas, the student may refrain
and even choose differently. Happiness of every
human being’s soul is in his or her own hands, to
preserve and develop, or to cast away.
 Aristotle: Intellectual Freedom

According to Aristotle, a human being is

rational. Reason is a divine characteristic. As
shown in Figure 5.1, reason, will, and action
drive each other.
Love Is Freedom
Of all creatures of God , only we have the
unique power to change and improve
ourselves and the things around us. As St.
Thomas Aquinas claimed, we are moral
agents. As discussed in Lesson 3, we are both
the spiritual and body elements. Indeed, the
unity between our complexity separating us
from animals. Because we have conscience, to
be “good” or “evil” becomes an exercise of
moral responsibility.
 However, change cannot be
accomplished by human beings alone but
with the cooperation from God. Since there is
an infinite gap between humanity and God,
only God can bridge this gap through His
power. Perfection by participation is a union
of humanity with God. Change should
promote not just the individual advantage but
the welfare of the community.
Aquinas gives a fourfold classification of
law: the eternal law, natural law, human law,
and divine law.
 Human beings, as rational beings, have laws
that should not only be obeyed but also be
obeyed voluntarily with understanding, as in
following the traffic rules. The natural law, then,
in its ethical sense, applies only to human
beings. The first principle and precept of the
natural law is that good is to be sought after
and evil avoided (this is the instruct of self-
preservation). There is inherent in every
human being, an inclination that he or she
shares with all other beings, namely, the desire
to conserve human life and forbid the contrary.
For instance, if there is fire, and its burning
heat is felt, then, it is but a human tendency to
avoid it.
 Since the law looks to the common good as its
end, it is then conceived primarily with
external acts and not with interior disposition.
If someone does not lie to his or her parents
just to increase his or her allowance, then the
reason of his or her goodness is not because
he or she does not want to lie because of the
reward; but rather, the act of lying will hurt his
or her parents. The same goes with
government officials who use full media
coverage when they help their constituents so
that people would vote for them. A person,
thus, should not be judged through his or her
actions alone but also through his or her
sincerity or motives behind his or her acts.
 For Aquinas, both natural and human laws
are concerned with ends determined
simply by humanity's nature. However,
since a human being is in fact ordained to
an end transcending his or her nature, it is
necessary that he or she has a law ordering
him or her to that end. This is the divine law
or revelation.
 It also gives human beings the certitude
where human reason unaided could arrive
only at possibilities. It deals with interior
disposition as well as external acts and it
ensures the final punishment of all
evildoings. Neither of which is possible for
human law. This divine law is divided into
old (Mosaic) and the new (Christian) that
are related as the immature and imperfect
to the perfect and complete. We have,
however, now passed beyond philosophy.
Since this rests on reason and experience
alone, the analysis of the divine law is the
function of theology
 Eternal law is the decree of God that
governs all creation. It is such "That Law
which is the Supreme Reason and cannot be
understood to be otherwise than
unchangeable and eternal." Natural law is
the human "participation" in the eternal law
and is discovered by reason. Natural law is
based on "first principles.”
 In this vein, St. Thomas points to a higher
form of happiness possible to humanity
beyond this life, and that is perfect
happiness that everyone seeks but could
be found only in God alone. He chose love
rather than law to bring about
transformation of humanity. For love is in
consonance with humanity's free nature,
while law commands and complete; love
only calls and invites. Since God is love, it
follows that love is the guiding principle of
humanity toward his or her self-perception
and happiness.
 This figure illustrates God’s love and
conscience result in actions
 For Startre, the human person is the
desire to be God: the desire to exist as a
being which has its sufficient ground in
itself. There are no guideposts along the
road of life. The human person shapes his
or her own identity of his or her choosing
(Srathern 1998). Sartre’s existentialism
stems from this principle: existence
precedes essence.
 The person is provided with a supreme opportunity to
give significance to one’s life. In the course of giving
meaning to one’s life, one fills the world with meaning.
 Freedom is, therefore, the very core of authentic
existence. Authentic existence is determined only by
the actions of the individual, in absolute freedom and
responsibility and which therefore the character of true
creation.
 The person is what one has done and is doing.
 On the other hand, the human person who tries to
escape obligations and strives to be en-soi (i.e., excuses
such as “I was born this way” or “I grew up in a bad
environment”) is acting on bad faith (mauvais foi).
Startre emphasizes the importance of free
individual choice, regardless of the power of other people
to influence and coerce our desires, beliefes, and
decisions. To be human, to be conscious, is to be free to
imagine, free to choose, and be responsible for one’s life.
 A law of nature is a percept or general
rule established by reason. A person is
forbidden to do that which is destructive of
his or her life or that which takes away the
means of preserving the same; and to omit
that by which he or she thinks it may be
best preserved.
� Given our desire to get out of the state of
nature, and thereby preserve our lives, Hobbes
concludes that we should seek peace. This
becomes his first law of nature. The
reasonableness of seeking peace immediately
suggests a second law of nature, which is that we
mutually divest ourselves of certain rights (such
as the right to take another person’s life) so ass
to achieve peace. That person be willing, when
others so too (this is necessary for peace-
building) to lay down this right to all things and
be contented with so much liberty against other
people, as he or she would allow other people
against himself or herself.
� The mutual transferring of these rights is
called a contract and is the basis of the notion of
moral obligation and duty. If one agrees to give
up his or her right to punch you, you give up
your right to punch him or her. You have then
transferred these rights to each other and
thereby become obligated not to hurt each other.
From these selfish reasons alone, both are
motivated to mutually transfer these and other
rights; this will end the dreaded state of war.
Hobbes continues by discussing the validity of
certain contracts. However, one cannot contract
to give up his or her right to self-defence or self-
preservation since it is his or her sole motive for
entering any contract.
� The rational pursuit of self-preservation is
what leads us to form commonwealths or states
for the laws of nature, given the conditions for
the establishment of society and government.
These are the rules a reasonable being would
observe in pursuing one's own advantage if he
or she were conscious of humanity's
predicament, in a condition in which impulse
and passion alone rule. The individual himself
or herself should not be governed by
momentary impulse and by prejudice arising
from passion. The State itself is the resultant of
the interplay of forces; and the human reason,
displayed in the conduct expressed by these
rules, is one of the determining forces (Garvey
2006).
� The laws of nature can be said to represent
axioms and postulates that render this
deduction possible. They answer the
question, "What are the conditions under
which the transition from the natural state of
war to the state of human beings living in
organized societies becomes intelligible?"
These systems are rooted from human nature
and are not God-given laws. Nor do they
state absolute values, for according to
Hobbes, there are no absolute values
(Garvey 2006).
 In Leviathan, Hobbes asserts:
"The fundamental law of nature seeks peace and
follows it, while at the same time, by the sum of
natural right, we should defend ourselves by all
means that we can.

It follows from this that there are 'some rights

that no human being can be understood by
words, or other signs, to have abandoned or
transferred.' Contracts made in the state of
nature are not generally binding, for, if one fears
that you will violate your part of the bargain,
then no true agreement can be reached. No
contracts can be made with animals since
animals cannot understand an agreement."
� The third law of nature is that human
beings perform their covenant made. Without
this law of nature, covenants are in vain and
but empty words; and the right of all human
beings to all things remaining, we are still in
the condition of war. Further, this law is the
fountain of justice. When there has been no
covenant, no action can be unjust. However,
when a covenant has been made to break, it
is unjust
Hobbes adds:

"...that covenants of mutual trust are

invalid when there is fear of non
performance on either part, and that in the
natural condition of war, this fear is always
present. It follows, therefore, that there are no
valid covenants and hence, no justice and
injustice until the commonwealth is
established; that is, until a coercive power
has been established which will compel
human beings to perform their covenants.”
 Hobbes upholds that human beings seek self-
preservation and security; however, they are to
perform their covenants." unable to attain this end in
the natural condition of war. The laws of nature are
unable to achieve the desired end by themselves
alone; that is, unless there is coercive power able to
enforce their observance by sanctions. For these laws,
though dictates of reason, are contrary to humanity's
natural passions. Therefore, it is necessary that there
should be a common power or government backed
by force and able to punish. This means that the
plurality of individuals should confer all their power
and strength upon one human being or upon one
assembly of human beings, which may reduce all
their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will
(Garvey 2006).04:52 AM
 That is to say, they must appoint one
man (or woman), or assembly of human
beings, to bear their person, a person being
defined as "he whose words or actions of
another human being, or of any other thing,
to whom they are attributed, whether truly or
by fiction." Hobbes makes a distinction
between a commonwealth by institution and
by acquisition.
1. A commonwealth is said to exist by
institution when it has been established
through the covenant of every member of
a multitude with every other member. The
multitude of human beings subjects
themselves to a chosen sovereign from
fear of one another.
2. A commonwealth is said to exist by
acquisition when the sovereign power has
been acquired by force. Here, human
beings fear for death alongside the
shackles of that ruler holding power over
their lives and liberty.05:02 AM
 Neither of these commonwealths affects
the sovereignty. The subjects of a sovereign
cannot either change the form of government
or repudiate the authority of the sovereign;
sovereignty is inalienable. No sovereign can
be unjustly put to death or in any way
punished by his or her subjects. For,
inasmuch as every subject is author of all the
sovereign's actions, to punish the sovereign
would be to punish another for one's own
actions.
 One of the prerogatives of the
sovereign enumerated by Hobbes is judging
what doctrines are fit to be taught. Thus, the
power of the sovereign being, to all intents
and purposes unlimited, brings forth the
question of freedom (if any) to be possessed
by the subjects or ought to be possessed by
them. A point of greater importance is that
subjects are absolved from their duty of
obedience to the sovereign, not only if the
latter has relinquished his or her sovereignty,
but also if he or she has indeed the will to
retain his or her power but cannot in fact
protect his or her subjects any longer.
 If the sovereign is conquered in war
and surrenders to the victor, his or her
subjects become the subjects of the latter. If
the commonwealth is torn asunder by
internal discord and the sovereign no longer
possesses effective power, the subjects
return to the state of nature, and a new
sovereign can be set up.
 Rousseau is one of the most famous
and influential philosophers of the French
Enlightenment on in the eighteenth
century. In his book, The Social Contract,
he elaborated his theory of human hot
nature. In Rousseau, a new era of
sentimental piety found its beginning.
� The "1986 EDSA Revolution" is an example,
though an imperfect one, of what the theory of
Social Contract is about, where people gathered
to voice their disenchantment peacefully and,
through mutual effort, ousted Ferdinand Marcos.
For Rand, advocating Aristotle, reason and will is
part of being human. Specifically, the EDSA
Revolution is an evidence of Filipinos' exercise
of reason and political will. They ousted Marcos,
proving their political maturity. Miranda (1987)
viewed the EDSA Revolution as a redeeming
event and not as fate. The Filipinos' concept of
kasarinlan (self-sufficiency) recognizes human
worth and dignity. The person, basing his or her
actions through reason is free and not a servant
to anyone (Ordonez 1986).
� According to Hobbes and Rousseau, the state
owes its origin to a social contract freely entered
into by its members. The two philosophers
differed in their interpretations. Hobbes
developed his idea in favor of absolute
monarchy, while Rousseau interpreted the idea
in terms of absolute democracy and
individualism.
� Both have one thing in common, that is
according to both, human beings have to form a
community or civil community to protect
themselves from one another because the
nature of human beings is to wage war against
one another and, since by nature, humanity
tends toward self-preservation, then it follows
that they have to come to a free mutual
agreement to protect themselves.
� Hobbes thinks that to end the continuous
and self-destructive condition of warfare,
humanity founded the state with its sovereign
power of control by means of a mutual
consent. On the other hand, Rousseau
believes that a human being is born free and
good. Now, he or she is in chains and has
become bad due to the evil influence of
society, civilization, learning, and progress.
Hence, from these come dissension, conflict,
fraud, and deceit. Therefore, a human being
lost his or her original goodness, his or her
primitive tranquility of spirit.
 In order to restore peace, bring his or
her freedom back, and as one returned to his
or her true self, he or she saw the necessity
and came to form the state through the social
contract whereby everyone grants his or her
individual rights to the general will. The term
"Social Contract" is a certain way of looking
at a society of voluntary collection of
agreeable individuals. The Constitution and
the Bill of Rights constituted, as an instance of
a social contract, however, is not a metaphor
but an actual agreement and actually
"signed" by the people or their
representatives (Solomon and Higgins 1996).
 For B.F. Skinner, the environment selects
which is similar with natural selection. We
must consider what the environment does to
an organism not only before, but also after it
responds. Skinner maintains that behavior is
shaped and maintained by its consequences.
Behavior that operates upon the environment
to produce consequences (operant
conditioning) can be studied by arranging
environments in which specific consequences
are contingent upon it. The second result is
practical; the environment can be
manipulated.
� Yelon (1996) accepted that behavioral
psychology is at fault for having
overanalyzed the words "reward" and
"punishment." We might have miscalculated
the effect of the environment in the
individual. There should be a balance in our
relationship with others and the environment.
In our dealing with our fellow human beings,
there is the strong and obvious temptation to
blame the environment if they do not
conform to our expectations.
� The question of freedom arises. Can an individual
be free? According to Skinner, our struggle for
freedom is not due to a will to be free as for Aristotle
or Sartre, but to certain behavioral processes
characteristic of the human organism, the chief effect
of which is the avoidance of or escape from "aversive"
features of the environment.

� The feeling of freedom, according to Skinner

becomes an unreliable guide as soon as would be
controllers turn to non-aversive measures, as they are
likely to do to avoid the problems raised when the
controller escapes or attacks. For example, a skillful
parent learns to reward a child for good behavior and
punish him or her for bad. Control becomes
necessary in the issue of freedom.
� Following the adage of John Stuart Mill, "Liberty
consists in doing what one desires." Skinner states
that when a person wants something, he acts to get it
when the occasion arises. Skinner argues that even
though behavior is completely determined, it is better
that a person "feels free" or "believes that he is free.“
� The issue is controllability. We cannot change
genetic defects by punishment; we can work only
through genetic measures that operate on a much
longer time scale. What must be changed is not the
responsibility of autonomous individual but the
conditions, environment, or genetic, of which a
person's behavior is a function. Example, a student
was praised by a teacher who said to him or her "Very
good!" for a solution to a problem or for giving the
correct answer to a question.