Yes people freely move towards utility. This is why I argue freedom grounds the value of utility, since free people would pursue utility. I also wouldn't say people are pursuing freedom. They already have it, and are exercising it when they choose to improve their conditions.

You can think of the question as being "should people be free to increase their utility or should people be forced to increase their utility?" The former grounds ethics on freedom whereas the latter grounds it on welfare.

>Simply, freedom is the power to reflect on our desires and change them based on abstract principles—including morals.

With this, the framing of this argument Freedom vs Utility is very difficult to wrap my head around or make sense. Utility focuses on material conditions and the improvement of such for reasons pertaining to quality of life and survival, whereas the freedom in this context does not contradict or contest that. If anything, it seems to be in support of utility over freedom, since people are moved towards values and principles because of their material conditions. With this in mind, ultimately, utility is what drives many in the pursuit of their "freedom".

What the f is freedom ? And what the bigger f is utility ?

and business leaders in the US used their freedom to lobby for war in the cases of both Vietnam and Iraq ie they used their freedom to kill millions for a paycheck funded by the people.

or the freedom US carbide used when it killed 10,000 people in Bhopal, India? they had the freedom to not use safety equipment.

hell Bezos and Musk are currently using their freedom to completely undermine the US government and factually the US has not been democratic since the mid-2000s, numerous studies have concluded that the people have effectively no say over policy of any kind and that implemented policy is almost always wanted by and often written by business.

all freedom leads to mass oppression.

finally why is murder worse then not murder? what makes stopping people killing others with force better then letting them kill each other?

ie it would have been moral for the Indian government to kill the regional head of US-carbide in order to stop them using their freedom to kill thousands.

You're arbitrarily giving preference to one freedom. You could just as well say since they both have equal right to freedom, the monk cannot deny his killers will to do what he wants.

I will get into rights in a future article, however, so long as someone has freedom, they are a member of the moral universe. Other members cannot deny their freedom.

Reason requires valuing anothers freedom. Since there is no reason from which to deny the monk's freedom, killing him would be morally wrong.

> your freedom to punch the air end where my face begins

That standard falls apart when you realize that very few actions (certainly none of the ones we care about) have no effect on others. Whether it is talking with someone, playing multiplayer games, or even buying groceries at the store -> all of those can have meaningful effects (positive and negative) on others.

Saying that you are free to do things that have no effect on anything or anyone is irrelevant, since no one cares about those actions. In most cases, freedom refers to the right to do things that might be harmful/objectionable to someone else.

> If the skeptic says his X is valuable, then according to reason, X is valuable among others.

Right but the equality here wouldn't tell us killing the monk is wrong. It seems like it could be morally neutral by your account.

This is a problem in not describing the kind of freedom you have in mind. It doesn't tell us how much weight to give positive versus negative rights.

It's possible to find out, but not mandatory.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

Fair, I address that here. Let me know of any insufficiencies and I will address them in future posts.

I think the question still stands. The link is also vague and mostly assuming your conclusion from the start.

If you don't mean anything more specific than the subjective experience of freedom, it is a problem for your position, since it isn't clear why the freedom not to be killed is more important than the freedom to kill others.

It feels circular to me / tautology. It took coming from an amoral system to get to a moral one too. So that can’t derive out otherwise. We came to a realization this certain broad stroking ideal value of freedom, but then must, as libertarian seem to not understand, hedge back from the externalities. Where freedom typically leads to amoral harms to others even when reasonably considerate. All actions have equal or greater reactions.

The social contract, when ideally exhibited, leaves people that generally believe the same thing together to individually not conflict most all the time. Manifesting an almost self deontology of reciprocal means. Allowing for the feel of un-governance / those imaginary lines that binds us. The individual is relied upon to make these moral decisions. But not all play by the rules, and most will be swayed by perverse incentives or otherwise bend sentient desires over group conformity and well being. We are rooted in our biological nature here despite the myth of modern liberalism played out (not a personally value claim). Selfish desires conflict with morality. It’s the urges we have versus the story we tell ourselves to feel okay about ourselves.

Freedom isn’t free right? So we have to manage and mitigate the cost of it by seeing the outweighed utility values or else freedom wouldn’t be a good approach. At the end of the day… It ends up always being a utilitarian and possible virtue ethic preposition. These degrees of freedom so to speak shape utility just much as utility shapes freedom.

So it comes back around that we created freedom out of the amoral but now we have to refocus this circular process to affirm the ideal. So then the distinction here doesn’t really shake out for me much different between utility and freedom. It just feels like explaining why we should put the cart in front of the horse. Not that this can’t have value in evaluation and perspective.

Perhaps..

I discuss it here, but what I mean by freedom is only the subjective experience of freedom. Someone can kill to maximize utility, which according to utilitarians is good. But we know its morally wrong.

Someone can kill in the name of freedom, yet except in very narrow cases (self-defense, defense of others), that person would be wrong according to my view since they are failing to respect another's freedom.

Is utility truly always the ultimate moral good (as you say in the essay)?

Edit: an even better question might be: is a society that organizes itself and its notion of the good around ends or outcomes a free society? Is a teleological moral demand sustaining of freedom?

As if people haven't committed crimes in the name of so called freedom?

Also, you never defined or detailed at all what you mean by freedom. Freedom for who?.... freedom to do what? Maybe you should be free to "kill the monk".

I talk about that here. When I say freedom, I mean only the experience of freedom.

I should have linked this article in the post, but I address it here.

Basically, since freedom is the foundation of morality, and others have freedom, the only way to create a moral system is through a social contract. The contract respects the freedom of others as it would include principles that cannot be reasonably rejected by free people.

So one's freedom to kill isn't moral, not because of the utility consequences, but because it doesn't respect another freedom by failing to abide by the social contract.

> Valuing freedom above all else can also lead to morally repulsive outcomes such as one’s freedom to explore their love of killing.

The common argument against this is that your freedom to punch the air end where my face begins. A society that would allow such actions, e.g. one to pursue their love of killing, would not truly be a free society at all.

Valuing freedom above all else can also lead to morally repulsive outcomes such as one’s freedom to explore their love of killing. There are some insightful points made by this author but I think I am left with more confusion about which value trumps the other and am not convinced either way.

I would say an oscillation between the two allows the DNA better chances of survival in different and changing environments.

Pure Utilitarianism could lead to living like an ant hill, or it could be the best route in survival situations.

Egalitarianism allows some to pursue activities that may allows new expressions or innovations. But it can also lead to decadence where no one undertakes the undesirable tasks and wastes resources on trivialities.

Universal : absolute , can still mean dynamic , fluid and changing - its the human mental construct that interprets and defines scenarios , I would say that nature is universal and absolute , yet it is also unique and diverse in its applications , what does natural governance look like , its not a charter or delegation’s and rules its a way of life that determines the very survival of the organisms in.question , they are compelled to abide by its rules, not chosen and consciously directed by some arbitrary process- we can try to live like ants and bees but all must respect and honour the figurehead as if born directly from its loins , abide and serve blindly , can we as humans regurgitate the forbidden fruit of knowing !!? Because that is whats required to make universal absolutes work