Socratic Analysis Paper on the Nature of Personal Freedoms
Tom and Brady are riding in the car on the way home from a basketball game when they see a cop pulling over a car for driving over the speed limit. This sighting sparks in them a conversation about and an interest in defining personal freedoms. They both think about why the officer pulled over the other car and what gives him the right to do so.
Tom: Man, poor guy! Why are cops such sticklers for speeding these days? Even if you are just going 5 or 10 miles per hour over the speed limit, they still pull you over!
Brady: I mean it is the law that you have to obey the speed limit, Tom. Its not like you can just go around doing what ever you want. You have to obey the law.
Tom: That’s where I’m confused, though, Brady. Why do you have to obey the law? Supposedly our country is based on liberty and freedom and all these other hard-to-define words. I think that freedom means we should be able to do what ever we want! If the founding fathers didn’t want us to, they should not have used the word freedom to describe the nature of the country.
Brady: Tom, you make an interesting point. But do you not think that if everyone had absolute freedom, the world would actually be worse off than before? If everyone always drove as fast as they could, the roads would be incredibly unsafe.
Tom: Ok, I see your point there. Perhaps I was too extreme in my statement; however, I do think that sometimes the government, or other sources of authority, imposes too much on our personal lives.
Brady: If you’re saying that some things should be allowed, while others should not be allowed, shouldn’t there have to be a specific line that separates the two? What creates that line? How do you know whether or not the government should restrict the action?
Tom: I believe that everyone deserves the right to his or her own personal freedoms.
Brady: Personal freedoms? Talk about “hard-to-define” words! What do you mean by personal freedoms? What constitutes a freedom as “personal?”
Tom: I don’t know… I do think that figuring that out could be an important step in understanding my position, though. First I think we should try to define “personal.” How would you define the word personal, Brady?
Brady: If I were to say “personal,” I would mean that it belongs or pertains only to myself.
Tom: Yes, but if I were to say that something was personal, I think I would meam that it only has to do with me, not you.
Brady: So, maybe the word “personal” just means that something pertains only to the person in question, whether it is you, me, or anyone else.
Tom: Further, I think we could say that, when not addressing a single, specific person, the word “personal” can just mean to pertain to one, individual person.
Brady: With regards to freedom, though, how does this describe the type of freedoms you are trying to talk about? Isn’t everything a person does supposedly “personal” if we define it in this way?
Tom: You are right. That is still too broad. Perhaps what I mean by “personal” in this sense is of or pertaining to, and only affecting, one, individual person. By adding this phrase, it specifies the definition a little more.
Brady: If we were to insert this definition into your original belief statement, it would read: I believe that everyone deserves the right to the freedoms of or pertaining to, and only affecting, that one, individual person. Is this what you meant by the original statement?
Tom: It most certainly is, Brady! I do believe that everyone deserves the right to freedoms that only pertain to and affect his/herself. I do not think that any outside force, government or otherwise, reserves the right to control the aspects of human life that do not have a direct effect on other people.
Brady: I think we are getting somewhere! I do, however, wish to understand better what you mean.
Tom: What do you wish to know? I think I have pretty well explained myself with this definition!
Brady: How do you think one would go about determining if an action affects other people or not?
Tom: Well, think about it: If some decides to drive drunk, that obviously has an effect on other people because of the increased possibility of reckless driving. This increased chance, then, can be dangerous because reckless driving leads to more accidents and therefore, more injuries and deaths. Similarly, if someone ends some else’s life, it is obvious that this action has a direct impact on that person’s life and the life of his loved ones.
Brady: Here, you have very well given me examples of how actions do impact others; however, his does not explain to me how to identify when actions do not have adverse affects.
Tom: I think that if an action, behavior, or decision does not harm any outsiders, than it should not be restricted. I believe that every person has a right to live the life they wish to live, without harming others, free from outside control.
Brady: What examples of this can you provide? Are there actually any actions that affect no one other than the person performing the action?
Tom: I believe people have a right to their own bodies and that a right like that only affects the person in question.
Brady: One might argue, however, that a person’s actions on or with his or her own body, does have a direct affect on the people close to that person. If someone were to choose to end his or her life, he or she may very well be exercising the right to one’s own body, but that person’s loved ones would be very much affected by this decision.
Tom: Those close to that person might feel emotionally hurt, but they would not be physically harmed in any way.
Brady: So by “not affecting outsiders,” you mean not physically harming others.
Tom: Yes, that is exactly what I mean!
Brady: Why do you believe that every human has the right to freedoms pertaining only to him that do not physically harm any others?
Tom: If the decisions these people make have no adverse effect on outsiders, then the outsiders have no reason to limit them.
Brady: Even if the action does have a terrible emotional effect on other people?
Tom: Yes! There is no way the government can limit everything that hurts people emotionally. For example, if a husband asks his wife for a divorce, the wife will obviously be emotionally hurt, but the government cannot and does not prohibit him from making this request. The government should only protect people from physical, measurable, harm. If the action does not have such an effect, no one should have any reason for wanting to limit it. Why would they care? Furthermore, if the government cannot protect against ALL emotional pain, they cannot choose to protect against only some of it.
Brady: Oh, Tom! You must be careful how you word things! Measurable? We now have to define this term if you genuinely want to find an explanation of your belief.