REFUTING MISCONCEPTIONS TOWARD FREEDOM AND LIBERTY

Liberalists always come up with same arguments when they want to justify their concepts of freedom.  There are flaws in the arguments of them, as I made some analysis through my reading. I ought to refute some concepts that they threw in the justifications;

1. They said that insulting others is not prohibited as long as it did not violated the two basic rules on freedom, which are 1) you do not physically harm others 2) you do not prevent others from exercising the same freedom.

2. They also argue that there is no such thing as gay rights, minority rights, and human rights. Collective rights are nothing but an aggregation of individual rights. The numbers do not matter. You can't pick and choose freedom. You either believe in freedom or you don't.

Firstly, I would say that I believe in freedom, totally, but not an absolute freedom or a freedom with the basic principles that are written above. I also believe that freedom and liberty is not a goal, but it is just a tool to achieve bigger goals of life. I derived it from a formula quoted by Aristotle in his book The Nichomachean Ethics, which he saw that the HIGHEST GOOD as the end sought by political science. Aristotle is focusing on the moral purpose that should be achieved from politics (in this case is freedom and liberty), which means that there are no benefits from freedom and liberty if they did not serve moral ethics of the society which is the highest good that Aristotle believe.

I cannot imagine, living in a country that is full with religious blasphemy and insults. Although both parties did not result to violence or prevent others to exercise the same insult, I swear it is not a kind of country that we ought to live in. There will be chaos, religious flare up and cold war between the citizens. Is this what liberalism means? Freedom that does not benefited anything good for the society and individuals. I guess if Aristotle lived today, he will also reject this kind of freedom that is far away from what he imagined should exist in a virtuous city.

I also cannot imagine waking up and see gays and lesbians across my hometown without feeling guilt. Is this a civilized society that we are talking about? Yes, they did not insult me personally, but this kind of freedom will harm the civilization for the next generations. We said that liberalism or liberal democracy brought us to the end of history, which means the culmination of human history. But liberal does not always mean progressive, whereas conservative or dogmatic do not always mean regressive.

I concluded that a nature of a good life is the core of freedom. Though conceptualization of a good life varies, but the basic realization of a good life is the combination of freedom with goodness. From this aspect, I realized that Islamic Politics and Philosophies meet the requirements. They just not meant for pure spiritual uplift, but also have a socio-economic and political significance as well. (which I will elaborate later in another entry, insya Allah).