Grateful Hearts | A personal column by reporter Sarah Beth Radomsky
I would argue that just because you “can,” doesn’t mean you “should.” This seems like common sense to many but it seems lately that we have a repetitive statement of, “You do you and I’ll do me.” That line might work temporarily to avoid conflict, but in the larger scheme of life, it makes some things more challenging.
A simple example would be that John Doe thinks it should be OK for him to roast young children for fun on a Sunday. No human being in their right mind would agree to that as an OK thing for another person to do. It infringes on the freedom of another person, namely by taking their life, among many other horrible things. The attitude of saying, “What is good for you is good for you, and what is good for me is good for me,” isn’t enough to maintain a civil society. Otherwise I could do whatever I wanted with zero regard for anyone else and there would also be absolutely no basis for there to be any law and order, as who would be able to say what is wrong and enforceable?
Once you can say that there must be some things that are actually “wrong,” the question becomes, what is wrong and what is right? There are some issues that most people can agree about and then we all know there are others that often bring up a lot of debate. Feelings or opinions aside, it does seem we can’t take an “everybody should make their own rules” approach if we desire to also protect our own lives and what we might consider our own rights.
Having come from an educational background of philosophy, the term for those who choose to say it is better to let people decide what is good for themselves is called subjectivism and that reality is subject to the perception of the viewer. I would propose that due to the flaws mentioned before, the alternative, which is acknowledging that there is a right and wrong, whether we agree what that is, regardless of how we might feel about it, is called absolutism. In this mindset, there is a line, and while the world might disagree about where that line is drawn, there would be a way to say, “Actually, John, you may not roast young children for fun on Sunday. That is definitely wrong, despite your personal feelings and desires about it.”
In this way, I think about what life, liberty and freedom means, as proposed by our Founding Fathers, regarding what they stated we have a right to pursue in the United States as citizens.
To that extent, I personally believe my life should not come at the expense of another, nor should I take another’s life to benefit or entertain myself. Thinking of those who protect us, I think it’s another class. They may take a life to protect life or their own when another threatens it, and in that guardian role, it appears justified.
The definition of liberty is “the power or scope to act as one pleases,” and also “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior or political views.” While no one would want a limit to liberty when defined like that, society sees issues when there are people or groups with intentions of specifically infringing upon the life, liberty and freedoms of another people group, such as the terrorist groups Al-Qa’ida or Hamas. In these cases, liberty must have limits. A minimal infringement upon liberty seems to be a general call for most lower-scale situations, such as matters of opinion. However, the question remains, once that liberty infringes on the liberty of another, how is it handled? Often this is where we see the most conflict today.
As for freedom, for a definition, I found, “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint,” the “absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government,” and “the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.” In the context of its original writing, it seems freedom would be a separation from British rule and a statement of expectation for the future government. I think the majority of us would say we are not imprisoned or enslaved. Based on historical definitions I think it would be hard to qualify America as under foreign domination or despotic governance. Probably the most contentious issue now is freedom of speech, with much controversy surrounding social media and consequences that some users are seeing from its use, potential government collusion to censor content, and debates over its influence on major issues, such as breaking news and election outcomes.
In summary, it seems that there must be a line. Definitive rights and wrongs are out there. I am not sure reflection on just life, liberty and freedom are sufficient to address the concept of the need for absolutism vs. subjectivism, but it was an interesting way to think about the subject in light of those foundational ideas in our country as a citizen. As our society seems to grow more divided on a plethora of issues, I do think that the fundamental issue is this division of thinking. As for me, I will side with the Absolutists.
