Skip to content
Read • Question • ConnectAnthony’s notes & researchReturn with a new question
Anthony’s NotesA personal field guide
From the notebook

Freedom

Philosophers

Based on the provided search results, here are some of the most famous philosophers’ thoughts on freedom:

  1. Immanuel Kant argued that freedom is possible only in a condition of “autonomy” - depending only on reason for our motives and principles. True freedom for Kant means obeying the categorical imperative, the moral law derived from reason.[1][5][8]

  2. Jean-Paul Sartre, the existentialist philosopher, believed that humans have absolute freedom and are therefore responsible for creating their own meaning and purpose in life. For Sartre, freedom is intimately bound up with his conception of consciousness - consciousness is free because no determining motives affect it and it can choose its own “motives”.[2][4][9][10][11][15][16]

  3. Aristotle criticized the ancient Greek democratic conception of freedom as “doing whatever one wishes”. Instead, he developed an “aristocratic” conception where a person is free to the extent they can live a life of politics and philosophy, enabled by education and sufficient resources.[3][6][14]

  4. John Locke argued that individuals should be free to pursue knowledge and truth without interference from government or authority. In his influential work On Liberty, Locke claimed that people should be able to freely discuss and debate ideas without fear of punishment.[7][13]

  5. Baruch Spinoza was an adamant determinist who denied the existence of free will. However, he still championed an ethics of freedom - not “free will” but freedom achieved through reason and living according to one’s nature without external compulsions or passions.[19]

In summary, while disagreeing on the metaphysical status of free will, most of these philosophers saw freedom as vitally important, whether conceived of as rational self-direction, political liberty, or existential self-creation. The ability to think and live freely was crucial to their visions of human flourishing.

Freedom: An Inherent Value or an Instrumental Value?

Based on the philosophical sources, there are compelling arguments on both sides regarding whether freedom has inherent/intrinsic value or only instrumental value:

Arguments that freedom has intrinsic value:

  1. Freedom is often considered valuable for its own sake, not just as a means to achieve other ends. Asking why someone would want freedom can seem to miss the point - it is desirable in itself.[1][2]

  2. If freedom was only instrumentally valuable, it could be justifiably restricted whenever doing so led to a greater good. But there is a strong intuition that freedom has some inherent value that makes such restrictions problematic.[2]

  3. Part of human dignity and autonomy seems to require the freedom to make choices, even if those choices are not always optimal. Removing freedom undermines human agency in an intrinsic way.[7]

Arguments that freedom has only instrumental value:

  1. Freedom seems valuable because it allows the pursuit of other intrinsic goods like happiness, self-actualization, etc. But freedom itself may not be intrinsically valuable - it matters because of the other valuable things it enables.[1][6]

  2. Thought experiments suggest freedom can lead to bad outcomes - e.g. “freely” choosing degrading or harmful things. If freedom was intrinsically good, how could more freedom lead to less value?

  3. It’s unclear how to weigh the intrinsic value of freedom against other values. Seeing freedom as instrumentally valuable avoids this problem - its value depends on the outcomes it produces.[8]

  4. The concept of “intrinsic value” in general is philosophically suspect. Arguably, all value is derivative on the states of sentient beings. So freedom would only have instrumental value insofar as it benefits people.[6]

In summary, while the intrinsic value of freedom has strong intuitive appeal, there are significant challenges in justifying and weighing it as an inherent good. An instrumental conception of freedom’s value, while less lofty, may be more coherent. But the debate remains unresolved. A nuanced view may be that freedom has both intrinsic and instrumental value to varying degrees.

Based on the provided search results, here is a summary of key philosophers’ views on whether freedom has intrinsic or instrumental value:

Freedom has intrinsic value

John Stuart Mill held that freedom of association is one of the core domains of individual freedom and has intrinsic value. He argued we should have the “right to choose the society most acceptable to us”, free from government interference.[1]

Immanuel Kant’s social and political philosophy championed the Enlightenment idea of freedom, suggesting Kant saw freedom as having intrinsic value.[1]

Seana Shiffrin developed a thinker-based theory arguing that free speech is essential for the development of thinkers. Her view unifies speaker, listener and democratic interests in free speech, seeing it as having broad intrinsic value beyond just political speech.[1]

Freedom has only instrumental value

An article titled “Freedom Has No Intrinsic Value: Liberalism and Voluntarism” directly makes the case that freedom lacks intrinsic value.[1]

One post argues that freedom seems to have merely instrumental value - “it is valuable for me to have this freedom, but only so that I may freely pursue actually intrinsic ends.”[4] The post questions whether there are any sensible arguments for seeing freedom as intrinsically valuable.

J. Fagg Foster, following John Dewey, rejected intrinsic value and argued that individual wants shaped by social conditions must be judged instrumentally. Valuations that ignore consequence-determining conditions cannot coordinate behavior to solve real problems.[6]

Other perspectives

John Locke’s influential views on freedom of action and will offered accounts of voluntary vs involuntary actions and of freedom vs necessity. However, Locke ultimately dismissed the traditional question of free will as absurd.[1]

A recent paper by Johan Gustafsson presents a paradox aiming to show that freedom of choice cannot be intrinsically valuable, as this would lead to contradictions.[2][3] However, the argument remains controversial.

In summary, while influential thinkers like Mill and Kant regarded freedom as intrinsically valuable, others have argued it has mere instrumental value for achieving other ends. The debate remains active in contemporary philosophy. Most agree freedom is highly important, but disagree on the source and nature of its value.

Different political concepts and debates around nature of freedom

Based on the search results, there are several key philosophical concepts and debates around the nature of freedom:

  1. Negative vs. positive liberty - This influential distinction was made by Isaiah Berlin. Negative liberty refers to freedom from external constraints or interference. Positive liberty refers to having the power and resources to fulfill one’s potential.[1][5][7][8][12]

  2. Freedom as absence of constraints vs. freedom as ability to act - Related to the negative/positive liberty distinction, some see freedom as simply the lack of external obstacles, while others argue it requires having the actual ability and resources to pursue your goals.[2][7][8]

  3. Freedom of will - The metaphysical question of whether humans have free will, and in what sense. Debates include determinism vs libertarianism, and whether moral responsibility requires a certain type of free will.[2][10][15][16]

  4. Political freedom - How the concept of freedom relates to political systems, laws, and the proper scope of government power. Classical liberals emphasize negative liberty and limited government, while social liberals argue for positive liberty and a larger government role to provide resources and opportunities.[12][17]

  5. Freedom as non-domination - The republican conception, in contrast to liberal “non-interference”, sees freedom as the absence of being subject to arbitrary or uncontrolled power, even if that power is not actively being exercised.[2][13]

  6. Freedom as an instrumental vs intrinsic value - Is freedom only valuable because it allows other goods, or is it intrinsically worthwhile in itself? Relates to whether any constraints on freedom can be justified.[11]

  7. Overall freedom - Recent work has emphasized that freedom is not just about specific actions, but one’s overall freedom in life, which can be enhanced or reduced in degrees by a wide range of factors.[2][19]

In summary, the concept of freedom is multifaceted, with long-standing debates between philosophers on how it should be understood, valued, and politically instantiated. But there is general agreement that freedom is a central human and political ideal.