MORAL FREEDOM

 MORAL FREEDOM

I.                INTRODUCTION

Among all creatures, humans are the only ones who are given freedom as the greatest gift by God. With it, there are human acts that a person makes as a moral subject. In other words, freedom is the foundation of morality. In this short paper, the concept of freedom is the center not in whole human dimensions but only in the moral context. The definition of freedom would express not only the meaning of the word but also its role and position in the own morality. Then the connection of freedom and another element of morality proposes the relationship between them. The last part, otherwise, clearly distinguishes moral freedom in politics and religion by emphasizing the same level of moral freedom of conscience.

II.             FREEDOM AS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN MORAL ACTION

1.     Definition[1]

Freedom generally is defined as “liberty”, a status which was freed from the status of slavery by war or economical reason. However, this word is more meaningful because freedom is “essential for human dignity”. According to Veritatis Splendor, no. 86: “Human freedom belongs to us as creatures; it is a freedom which is given as a gift, one to be received like a seed and to be cultivated responsibly.  It is an essential part of that creaturely image which is the basis of the dignity of the person.”[2] Moreover, it is “indispensable for morality” and without it, there is no moral or human action, and man can’t turn to what is good.[3] In morality, the word freedom also means “authenticity”, that is the man, with the gift of freedom, is called to response his primordial vocation through which God calls him to the true Good, to become Christ’s friend and to share his own divine life. Because of the salvation of Christ, human freedom has been restored and whenever it is ultimately directed toward communion with God, the freedom becomes perfect.[4]

As we know that there is no absolute freedom in the reality or even in some abstract ideal order because freedom has its limitations, those are limitations from without and limitations from within. The limitation of freedom, is an intrinsic part of human beings, was named as the state “facticity”. In his book, Bretzke distinguished two types of freedom, namely basic and moral.[5] But I like to call them the two levels of freedom since basic freedom is the ability to determine oneself in front of the Absolute (God) through categorical moral choices. In another word, basic freedom presumes moral freedom which is the ability to recognize and choose the categorical values or disvalues. Therefore, freedom is different from the fundamental option which isn’t even related to conscience, grace, and moral life. On the contrary, freedom, when is used by a man in choosing to become someone who chooses God as his purpose of life, shows its transcendental aspect.

2.     Relationship between Freedom and Morality

a.     Freedom and human act

As to be expressed in the previous part, there is human act[6] without freedom because freedom not only makes a person become a moral subject who is responsible for his “good” or “evil” acts but also direct his intellect to know or to seek the good in every motivation of acts. A man with his freedom, therefore, is called the father of his acts.[7] De facto, the will of man naturally leads to the good so that if the man chooses something bad in morality, his will chose a partial good which was presented by the intellect under the direction of the will.[8] There are two kinds of freedom, such as the external freedom which carry out one’s decision, and the internal or psychological freedom which to decide to choose between two possible actions, between doing an action or not, the means for an end, and even choose the end as a means for a hidden end.[9]

b.     Freedom and Truth – Good

In principle, the will directs the intellect to know while the intellect gives the foundation for the will’s choices. In other words, freedom will imply knowledge which supplies the capacity to choose. So, the knowledge must be a truth that is not the same as opinion or one’s judgment but as an objective reality. Meanwhile, human naturally tends to choose the good over the evil which was only chosen if he intentionally just considers the partial good aspects of that evil. In short, freedom is the capability of choosing the good, more and more do good, more and more he is free.[10]

c.      Freedom and voluntary acts

A free act is always voluntary, but a voluntary act is not necessarily free because there is no choice, such as knowing and loving God, desiring happiness, etc. It doesn’t mean a voluntary act without freedom is limited but freedom is only a necessary condition for acts to be fully voluntary. Or in other words, freedom is only a means to do voluntary acts. Once again, freedom is a capability to choose while the strength of the voluntary act does not come from this possibility of choice. Belmonte gave a very clear example in his book: when a mother says, “I love my child,” the strength of her voluntary love act doesn’t come from choosing to love or not. However, with the possibility of choice, freedom makes man responsible for his acts.[11]

d.     Freedom and God

Besides choosing in a particular action, freedom also enables a man to choose how he become in the latter. It is called a decision about oneself[12] in which he chooses the Good or not, the Truth or not, and ultimately chooses God or not. In reality, one man with his freedom can choose or reject God as the last end but he is morally free only to choose God.[13] Since rejecting God as the last end is the way to self-destruction in which a man chose himself as the last end that leads him to frustration and even hatred of himself. Thus, choosing God as the last end is a voluntary act that isn’t limited by the free possibility of choice but is perfected by it. In the stream of time, the more humans choose and do the good and the truth which leads them to God, freedom is increased. Otherwise, by rejecting them freedom is more diminished. Properly speaking, freedom can neither increase nor diminish. However, freely choosing would form the habit, the tendency, and even the openness or closeness of knowledge that simplify or make difficult the next choice.[14]

3.     A right to religious and moral freedom

It is different from the discussion of freedom in principle and definition which I showed in the previous two parts. I desire to discuss freedom in a wider context, such as in real practice which became a debate of Michael J. Perry and Rafael Domingo.[15] For the limitation of this short paper, I just show the main points that I consider important and meaningful for our moral life in using freedom.

Firstly, while Perry unified religious and moral freedom, Domingo distinguished them. He argues that religion and morality affect legal systems in different ways because religious freedom and moral freedom are different ontological realities.[16] The obvious proof is religious freedom can be separated from the political system, but the political society can’t be separated from morality. Moreover, religious freedom, especially in the modern context, not only is the right to choose and practice religion that includes non-transcendent religion and beliefs but also is freedom from religion[17]. The reason for this conversion is that the existence of God is no longer the absolute foundation of the right of religious freedom but the religious capacity of the human being as a dimension of his inherent dignity that was named the freedom of conscience. Meanwhile, all communities are naturally moral communities since every individual, has freedom, is a moral subject who continuously gives moral decisions.

Secondly, while political morality should be based on a moral rationale, religious morality is not only based on the moral rationale but also a called moral supra-rationale which doesn’t against but beyond reason.[18] But it doesn’t mean the political community must apply the law based on supra-rationale because it could violate the man’s freedom from religion. Thirdly, he also distinguished moral independence and moral autonomy. The first one is absolute personal sovereignty that doesn’t be forced by any external imposition. In this case, a person freely practices his own morality.[19] It is different from the last one which “emphasizes the indispensable relationship between human freedom and moral order in all dimensions of the human person, namely individual, social and transcendent.”[20] But the autonomy is valuable only if exercised in pursuit of the good as Joseph Ratzinger stressed. It, therefore, supports moral freedom of conscience which embraces the whole human being without exception.

III.           CONCLUSION

Freedom and morality establish a whole in which the best way to practice freedom is to follow objective morality without any extern force. Therefore, the first and main foundation of morality is the moral freedom of conscience. For us who are Catholic, morality is not only based on reasonable but also supra-rationale which supports us in the easier way to reach the Good, the Truth, and our True God. It is important to know that we should get true freedom with choosing God as the ultimate purpose, and with only choosing the Good, we’re free more and more. Above all, freedom is the most important instrument that we use in the only way of morality to achieve happiness with our Creator. Let’s use freedom to improve and develop our morality day by day.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding. Manila: Studium Theologiae Foundation, Inc. 2006.

Bretzke, J.T. A moral complex world – Roman Catholic Fundamental Moral Theology. 2018.

Domingo, Rafael. A right to religious and moral freedom? In Icon. Vol 12 No. 1. (2004). 226-247.

---

[1] We don’t discuss the definition of the word “freedom” in the literal meaning but in the moral context only. In here, I resume them from Bretzke, J.T. A moral complex world – Roman Catholic Fundamental Moral Theology. 2018. Pg. 52-53.

[2] John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor. Vatican. 6 August 1993. No. 86.

[3] Cf. John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor. Vatican. 6 August 1993. No. 34.

[4] Cf. Gal 5:1; John Paul II. Veritatis Splendor. Vatican. 6 August 1993. No. 86.

[5] Cf. Bretzke, J.T. A moral complex world – Roman Catholic Fundamental Moral Theology. 2018. Pg. 53.

[6] We need to distinguish the human act and the acts of man which principally are not a concern of morals and without freedom. There are not only the natural acts of vegetative and sense faculties, but only the acts of them who lack the use of reason, asleep, under the influence of hypnosis or alcohol, under violence or threat of violence, etc. see more Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding. Manila: Studium Theologiae Foundation, Inc. 2006. Pg. 21.

[7] Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding… Pg. 20.

[8] Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding… Pg. 21.

[9] Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding… Pg. 22.

[10] Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding… Pg. 23.

[11] Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding… Pg. 24.

[12] Through freedom, a man makes self-determination, that is choosing to be the kind of person he is. Because through a serial of actions which he chose, he give himself an identity and this is the way we shape our lives. “By choosing, I make myself”. See “freedom and self-determination” from Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding… Pg. 26.

[13] “Freedom as the ability to choose God as last end and choose the means leading to him.” See Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding… Pg. 25.

[14] Belmonte, Charles (Ed.). Faith Seeking Understanding… Pg. 25-26.

[15] Actually, “A right to religious and moral freedom” is Michael J. Perry’s article which was challenged and commented on by Rafael Domingo. See Domingo, Rafael. A right to religious and moral freedom? Icon. Vol 12 No. 1. (2004). Pg. 226.

[16] Domingo used the words “home” for morality and “neighbor” for religion in relationship with the political community.

[17] In this argument, Domingo gave a comparison between the right to religion and the right to marriage or the right to work. Through it, freedom is not only “of” but “from” also. See more Domingo, Rafael. A right to religious and moral freedom? Icon. Vol 12 No. 1. (2004). Pg. 234.

[18] According to Domingo, prohibition of abortion and euthanasia are based on a moral rationale and it is also illuminated by a moral supra-rationale, that is “human beings are created in the image and likeness of God.” See Domingo, Rafael. A right to religious and moral freedom? Icon. Vol 12 No. 1. (2004). Pg. 238.

[19] This was also called a sort of canonization of subjectivity. See Domingo, Rafael. A right to religious and moral freedom? Icon. Vol 12 No. 1. (2004). Pg. 240.

[20] Domingo, Rafael. A right to religious and moral freedom? Icon. Vol 12 No. 1. (2004). Pg. 240.