Advance Reading Notes

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person

Lesson: Freedom and Responsibility
Date: November 29, 2021
Source: [book - IPHP] Chapter 5: Freedom of the Human Person
Key Ideas Explanations/Interpretation
- An important indication of human freedom is the ability to make choices and
perform actions.
- The human person does not experience the world in the same way that animals
Freedom is an intrinsic and essential property of a person. The do. Animals act instinctively, meaning, their actions are more like
human person is by nature free and seeks freedom. Our predetermined responses to certain stimuli. A person, on the other hand, can
freedom to act sets us apart from other beings. choose the course of action to take when given a stimulus or faced with a certain
situation.
- With us humans, our inherent freedom makes us very dynamic creatures and our
actions do not necessarily follow a set Pattern or a pre-determined course.
- Your nature as a human person gives you the ability to imagine that future. Your
freedom, meanwhile, gives you the ability to strive to achieve that goal.
- This is the nature of self-determination: that a person's actions determine what
Freedom is also understood to be the power to create and define
kind of person he or she becomes
oneself. It is also rooted in the person's self-determination and
- Freedom gives us the choice to undertake one of these possible actions. It also
the exercise of intellect and free will.
enables us to come up with new choices.
- The essence of freedom is that it does not confine our actions to those set or
expected by others; we can imagine new actions and decide to undertake them.
Having and exercising freedom entail certain responsibilities. - Freedom also requires a degree of control from the person who exercises it. A
Human action can either uphold or diminish freedom. A person person becomes freer when he or she exercises control over himself or herself.
becomes less free when he or she does not exercise control over On the other hand, a person becomes less free when he or she is no longer in
his or her actions. Actions that diminish freedom also control of himself or herself and is instead controlled by other forces.
dehumanize a person - The first and third point are self-explanatory, expound by example.

There are three kinds of freedom. Physical freedom refers to Physical Freedom
the absence of physical restraint. Psychological freedom is the Physical freedom refers to the absence of any physical restraint. The person has
freedom of choice. Moral freedom refers to the responsible use the freedom of mobility to go where he or she wants to go. He or she is not
of freedom which upholds human dignity and goodness. impeded in his or her actions by any physical force. Granted that the person has
natural limitations, physical freedom allows him or her to act and move in a
determined manner. You cannot be everywhere at once, but your freedom allows

SONNEL CALMA 1
 you to move from one place to another and to go wherever you want to go.
Psychological Freedom
Psychological freedom is also called freedom of choice. The person is free to
perform actions that he or she considers right and wise. A person is also free to act
or not to act. Psychological freedom is innate and cannot be denied a person. No
outside force or influence can compel a person to take action against his or her
will.
Moral Freedom
Moral freedom refers to using freedom in a manner that upholds human dignity
and goodness. Freedom is not an object that a person may use in whatever way he
or she pleases. A person must use his or her freedom to grow as a person. A
person becomes freer when he or she uses freedom well, but becomes less free
when he or she uses it in a bad way. Humans have a natural inclination for what is
true and good, and when a person uses his or her freedom to do acts that violate
human dignity and goodness, he or she dehumanizes himself or herself and
effectively negates human freedom.
- Voluntariness means that a person may decide to act or not to act, and these
decisions are made out of his or her own free will. Voluntariness also means that
a person may act even if he or she is not required or called to take action.
- Taking responsibility can either mean a person voluntarily taking responsibility
for his or her own actions, or being held responsible by other people.
The two important elements of human freedom are - Responsibility can also have a positive or negative meaning, and it goes hand-
voluntariness and responsibility. Voluntariness refers to the in-hand with voluntariness in determining the morality of an action.
ability of the person to act out of his or her own free will and - In any situation where a person is forced to do an action against his or her will,
self-determination. Responsibility refers to the person being it follows that he or she cannot be held responsible for his or her involuntary
accountable for his or her actions and their consequences. actions.
- On the other hand, a person who had no awareness of the effect of his or her
actions can be considered as acting with diminished freedom.
- Without these two elements, human freedom is diminished, and the person
makes imperfect actions and unwise decisions which may have negative effects
on the self and others.
Freedom is experienced through the act of making choices. It is - Although human freedom gives us the ability to think of countless decisions and
therefore important for persons to exercise caution and possible actions, we only get to choose to enact one of these possible actions or
prudence and reflect on possible courses of action in making decisions
decisions or doing actions. - Having the ability to choose and enact a course of action does not automatically
mean that we should take action every time.

SONNEL CALMA 2
 - Self-reflection is vital in the proper exercise of human freedom. As persons, we
cannot allow ourselves to be slaves to sudden emotions and moods whenever we
act. As free and rational beings, we must recognize the importance of exercising
freedom responsibly. This requires us to reflect on our actions, consider their
effects, and make the proper choices regarding the most beneficial decisions or
actions
- Human freedom should be exercised with control and a recognition of
reasonable limits.
Freedom should be exercised in a responsible and beneficial
- A person can even choose to limit his or her own freedom or even surrender it
manner. Individuals must exercise control over their actions
entirely if it will result in greater benefits.
and recognize reasonable limits to their freedom. Freedom
- Limiting our personal freedom requires us to sacrifice certain self-interests and
should also be exercised with regard for knowledge and truth,
accept certain realities that are beyond our control.
and each choice or action must be made after careful thought
- Freedom should also be exercised with regard for knowledge and truth.
and reflection. Finally, it is our responsibility as persons to
- As human persons, our nature drives us to uphold human dignity and goodness.
uphold not only our individual freedoms, but also the freedom
In exercising our freedom, we should also recognize and uphold not only. our
of others.
individual freedom but also the freedom of others. This view has led to the
assertion that freedom is a recognized and guaranteed right for all persons.
The key idea is that we should always act well in any given situation because the
self is determined by the self. We have given tendencies or inclinations, and the
world also exerts some forces over us, but we can transcend all of these and
FINAL NOTE: The Given and the Chosen determine ourselves in the manner we want because we are free. As much as
possible, we must use our freedom in a good way so that we may become better
people and better versions of ourselves for
our own sake and the sake of others.

Source: [website] Immanuel Kant: Philosopher of Freedom

Key Ideas Explanations/Interpretation

- In a nutshell, you do good because you yourself think it is good, not because you
THE GOOD WILL AND THE MORAL LAW
are expecting something in return.
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE - It is the things you have to do no matter what, universally.  It says, for instance,
“Do not murder, even if you can achieve your goals by doing so.”
- Hypothetical imperatives on the other hand take the if-then
- 1st Formulation: We must not treat other people or ourselves as means only to some
other end, but always as ends in ourselves.

SONNEL CALMA 3
 - 2nd formulation: “Always act according to that maxim that you can will as a
universal law of nature.” In other words, think about the principle or rule that
justifies your action; then figure out whether it’s universalizable.
- Now, this understanding of the dignity of the individual human being implies that
persons have rights, in other words, that we have an enforceable duty to respect the
freedoms of all persons.
So we can’t trample on the freedoms of one person to help one or many others
(contra the “act utilitarians”). For instance, it would be wrong to kill one healthy
person to distribute her organs to several sick people, even if doing so was
necessary to save two or more lives. Each person has a dignity that must not be
trampled, no matter what.
- (Another misunderstanding of Kant says that he thinks your intentions are the only
thing that matter and you can ignore the consequences of your actions. To the
contrary, to ignore consequences is to act with ill intent. Consequentialists differ
from Kant in believing that only aggregate consequences of actions need be taken
into account. Kant’s political theory is individualist, while consequentialist theories
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS are inevitably collectivist.)
In an essay titled “Theory and Practice” (short for a much longer title), Kant gives
an overview of his political theory.
- Kant therefore endorses the law of equal freedom, that everyone should have
maximum freedom to pursue happiness consistent with the like freedom of
everyone else, or what some libertarians have called the “Non-Aggression
Principle.” This principle applies under government, not just in the state of nature.
- The equal freedom of each subject in a civil state, Kant says, “is, however, perfectly
consistent with the utmost inequality of the mass in the degree of its possessions,
whether these take the form of physical or mental superiority over others, or of
fortuitous external property and of particular rights (of which there may be many)
with respect to others.”
- Kant’s strong theory of individual rights sets us up for a rejection of political
authority
KANTIAN LIBERALISM Kant’s moral philosophy justifies extremely strong individual rights against coercion.
The only justification for coercion in his philosophy seems to be defense of self or
others. His ideal government therefore seems to be extremely limited and to allow for
the free play of citizens’ imaginations, enterprise, and experiments in living.
Kant does take some strange positions on particular moral positions. He has an odd
view of marriage as a kind of mutual servitude, he denies that there is a right to resist

SONNEL CALMA 4
 an unjust sovereign, and he thinks lying is always wrong, no matter what.

Source: [website] Kant’s take on Freedom

Key Ideas Explanations/Interpretation

- The traditional sense of freedom, is one’s ability to righteously act, speak, and or think the way they
wish.
Traditional Freedom - Although many, if not all of these freedoms are positive, it wasn’t the case profound philosophers were
asserting. This may be surprising to some, but it’s true. Many free thinkers did indeed advocate for
democracy, self determination, and liberation.
- Libertarians would state that one is free when they can choose what they want. Kant in contrast to that,
believes that choosing what you want isn’t freedom. He insisted that acting on the basis of desire is
being governed, not by one’s reason, but by their primitive, animalistic instincts.
KANT VS FREEDOM
- Kant’s perception of freedom, is the ability to govern one’s actions on the basis of reason, and not
desire. This can all be reduced to the concept of Autonomy.
- Live by the laws you impose unto yourself, not by your instincts
KANT ON REASON - The ideal notion of reason, is to derive conclusions on the basis of objectives, rather than subjectivity. In
other words, using logic backed with empirical facts and evidence, is considered superior to conclusions
driven from anecdotal experiences.

SONNEL CALMA 5
 - This is the standard way in which we operate professionally, and reasonably. Kant agreed that this is
positive, however, he saw reason in another light. Kant describes the reason where one uses their
intelligence, as instrumental reason.
- So empiricism is considered instrumental in this case. Differing from that, he makes the case for what he
coined as “Pure Reason”. This concept simply put, is what one considers “good” and “evil”. With pure
reason, one can decide how to live their lives. With instrumental reason, one can decide on what they
need to do within their life.
- The most important aspect of pure reason, is that it’s separate from libertarian freedom.
PURE REASON IN RELATION TO - This relates to freedom in a really eye opening way. Through Kant’s works, we begin to understand that
FREEDOM freedom cannot coincide with the oppression of one’s pure reason, where the oppressor is desire. We
must suspend our desire, to achieve freedom.

He pointed out that, most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something isn’t really a moral choice – instead, it’s just contingent on
our desires. (If then imperatives or hypothetical imperatives) [more on prudence than morality]
But Kant viewed morality not in terms of hypothetical imperatives, but through what he called categorical imperatives. These are
commands you must follow, regardless of your desires. Categorical imperatives are our moral obligations, and Kant believed that they’re
derived from pure reason. He said it didn’t matter whether you want to be moral or not – the moral law is binding on all of us. And he said
you don’t need religion to determine what that law is, because what’s right and wrong is totally knowable just by using your intellect.
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is often known as the universalizability principle. And Kant phrased it this way: “Act
only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”
o So, as a Kantian, before I act, I would ask myself, what’s the maxim of my action? In other words, what’s the general rule that
stands behind the particular action I’m considering?
o Well, the particular action you’re considering – taking a chom-chom from a merchant without paying for it – is stealing. And if
you approve the maxim of stealing – which you’re doing, whether you admit it or not – then what you’re actually doing is
universalizing that action.
o If you should be able to do it, then – everyone should be able to do it.
o So what Kant’s really saying is that it’s not fair to make exceptions for yourself.
The second formulation focuses on how we should treat other people. And it goes this way: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in that of another, always as an end, and never as a mere means.

SONNEL CALMA 6
 o To use something as a “mere means” is to use it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the interests or benefit of the thing
you’re using.
o It’s perfectly fine to use things as mere means – but not humans. This is because we are what Kant called ends-in-ourselves. We
are not mere objects that exist to be used by others. We’re our own ends. We’re rational and autonomous.
o So, to treat someone as an end-in-herself means to recognize the humanity of the person you’re encountering, to realize that she
has goals, values, and interests of her own, and you must, morally, keep that in mind in your encounters with her.
o We use people all the time, and that’s okay – we use people as means for something, but not as a mere means. We still recognize
their humanity when we use them, and they agree to being used.
o We can set goals for ourselves, and take steps to realize those goals. This imbues us with an absolute moral worth, Kant said,
which means that we shouldn’t be manipulated, or manipulate other autonomous agents for our own benefit. And this means that
things like lying, and deception are never OK. Because if I’m being deceived, I can’t make an autonomous decision about how to
act, because my decision is based on false information.

SONNEL CALMA 7