I’ve been having some pretty interesting conversations on the topics of freedom. The group reconvened for one of our regular open topic discussions, this time focused solely on the ethics of the freedoms and liberties that people around the world debate on. Why do we demand free speech, the ability to organize, the ability to demand justice and the freedom to worship whoever our please – do these freedoms exist without limit or are there curbs even then? We dived into some of this mess and came out with some interesting insights.

As always, here are the materials we read:

1. Freedom of Speech – Ethics.Org
2. Ethics of Freedom – Simone de Beauvoir
3. Bringing Freedom and Responsibility – Theosophy Forward
4. Is Personal Freedom a Western Value – Franck, 1997

Freedom has always seemed like a tricky thing, when it sounds like it should be simple. Every individual has a suite of rights and liberties that allow them to not only function as a human being but also to be a contributing member of a democratic state. One’s ability to be free is, in essence, essential to their sense of selves. How can one learn to understand their beliefs if they do not speak to them and engage with them in an open environment? How can one develop agency over their lives if they do not even choose how their lives must look? Freedoms also importantly prevent oppression and the manipulation by the powerful. When empowered, the free provide checks and balances on those who have influence by enacting direct and effective responses to curb excess.

In our discussions on whether freedoms are innately valuable, we identified two ethical challenges:

1.The Safety and Stability Argument

There are social contracts in place that establish soft agreements and norms around values, rights and limitations. It is not difficult to see freedoms as a short term contributor of chaos to society – it increases entropy and variance while reducing the potential for alignment. People who are free may very rarely agree what in itself should be free to all.

In certain countries, Singapore being a relevant example, freedoms are sacrificed for the sake of stability and safety, especially in consideration of the dense and concentrated distribution of people and ideas. In this tiny country, chaos actually can disrupt our highly efficient way of life to the point where people’s livelihoods are in dire risk. Consider the US, where a local conflict in one city does not reduce the overall country’s ability to add to its GDP. This does not apply to Singapore, especially so where diversity is already a given in our ethnic and religious identities.

In such situations, it is difficult to argue freedom’s worth on its innate value when its unrestricted presence can actually impede a person’s ability to improve their standard of living. The utilitarian argument for a balance of priorities in favor of what improves one’s happiness may still justify safety and stability over freedom.

Even more so when we consider that people could choose safety and stability over freedom even when no harm is in view. This was a difficult position for me to understand but the more I spoke to Singaporeans, the more I began to learn that many do not care about the potential shutting down of freedoms as long as prosperity and financial wealth was in view. One’s ability to be human in this context seemed to depend less on their ability to actualize and more on their ability to accumulate material possessions. I couldn’t see myself ever taking this position but the reality is that others freely do so – who are we to judge their choices?

2. The Responsibility Argument

Perhaps the more sensible argument towards restriction of freedoms comes from the responsibility argument. Here, freedom is only seen as innately valuable if accompanied with the complementary virtue of responsibility. Freedom of speech must come with a responsibility for impact. Freedom of religion comes with a responsibility for care. Freedom of the press comes with a responsibility of integrity.

These new freedom-responsibility patterns allow us to understand that liberties are granted not for us to be reckless and destructive but for us to be coherent and purposeful humans who aim to make our and others’ lives better. Responsibilities provide intuitive constraints to freedoms such that individuals exercise holistic actions as citizens. Rather than curb freedoms in the all-encompassing defense of safety and stability, I am preferential to the establishment of responsibility norms that bolster the effectiveness of liberties.

___

It’s been a journey re-framing the experience in Singapore having been granted the benefit of living by the liberties in the US and London. I value a lot of the stability here but I also recognize that I personally value my ability to think and speak openly more. It’s an ongoing conversation then of how Singapore can continue to be home to me even despite its insistence on its restrictions.

Let’s hope I figure it out over the next few years.