The Absolute and Relative Nature of Duty and the Illusion of Freedom

The Absolute and Relative Nature of Duty and the Illusion of Freedom

Introduction:

The concepts of duty and freedom have long been subjects of philosophical discourse, with scholars offering diverse perspectives on their absolute or relative nature. Immanuel Kant, a prominent philosopher, argued for the universality and unconditional nature of duty, while sociologist Emile Durkheim emphasized the societal relativity of obligations. Similarly, the illusion of freedom has been examined by thinkers such as Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza, and Kant, each presenting unique insights into the nature of human agency. In this article, we will explore the commonalities and connections between these ideas, shedding light on the complex relationship between duty, freedom, and human existence.

The Absolute Nature of Duty:

Kant's concept of duty as a categorical imperative highlights its formal, universal, and unconditional nature. Acting out of duty implies that one believes others can act in the same way, creating a sense of obligation that transcends individual circumstances. While duties may possess specific contents, they must be capable of universal obligation. Any duty that is conditional, such as "I will tell the truth if I am paid," falls under the category of hypothetical duties. In contrast, Kant argues that true duty is absolute and devoid of any conditions.

The Relative Nature of Duty:

On the other hand, Durkheim's sociological perspective suggests that duties are relative to each society. He posits that duties arise from the internalization of societal rules, primarily through education. This implies that obligations vary depending on the specific roles and responsibilities assigned to individuals within a given society. For example, the duty to respect the property of others corresponds to the requirements of a society founded on private ownership. Durkheim's approach highlights the contextual and subjective nature of duties, which are shaped by the social constructs within which individuals exist.

Connecting Duty and Freedom:

Examining the connection between duty and freedom, Leibniz argues that freedom is inherent to human agency and is intertwined with the concept of accountability. According to Leibniz, freedom enables individuals to exercise their free will by choosing between good and evil. This moral freedom allows for the attribution of innocence or guilt, as individuals bear responsibility for their actions. By creating a world in which humans possess free will, Leibniz argues that God showcases His perfection and maintains His innocence.

Descartes further explores the idea of freedom by distinguishing between two types: freedom of evidence and freedom of indifference. Freedom of evidence suggests that individuals are naturally inclined to submit to what is evident, allowing reason to guide their choices. On the other hand, freedom of indifference leaves the will entirely unrestricted in the absence of clear truth. Descartes favors freedom of evidence as it provides clarity and decisiveness in decision-making, while freedom of indifference leads to doubt and hesitation.

Spinoza, however, challenges the existence of true freedom, regarding it as an illusion. He posits that humans perceive themselves as free solely because they are unaware of the causes that determine their actions. Spinoza argues that true freedom lies in understanding the internal and external forces, desires, and passions that influence human behavior. Through rational action based on this knowledge, individuals can act more intentionally and preserve their own being.

Kant's Perspective on Freedom:

Kant reintroduces the necessity of freedom to establish a moral framework. He presents freedom as an autonomous will that acts in accordance with reason's universal demands, rather than mere personal desires. For Kant, the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and freedom are the three postulates of practical reason. These principles are essential for the possibility of moral practice. Kant's perspective aligns with Leibniz's argument that freedom is a fundamental aspect of human agency and moral accountability.

Actionable Advice:

• 1. Recognize the universality of duty: Understand that duties are not solely based on individual preferences or circumstances but possess a universal aspect that transcends personal inclinations. Act in a way that considers the well-being and obligations of others.

• 2. Cultivate self-awareness: Strive to gain a deeper understanding of the internal and external factors that influence your decisions and actions. By recognizing the forces that shape your behavior, you can exercise more rational agency and align your actions with your true values.

• 3. Embrace freedom as moral autonomy: View freedom as an opportunity to act in accordance with reason's universal demands rather than a license to pursue personal desires. Embrace the responsibility that comes with freedom and make choices that align with moral principles and the greater good.

Conclusion:

The concepts of duty and freedom have been examined from various philosophical perspectives, highlighting their absolute or relative nature and the illusion of freedom. While Kant emphasizes the universality and unconditional nature of duty, Durkheim emphasizes its relativity to societal norms. Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza, and Kant provide unique insights into the nature of freedom, with each philosopher contributing to our understanding of human agency. By recognizing the commonalities and connections between these ideas, we can navigate the complex relationship between duty, freedom, and personal fulfillment.