You cannot be both free and moral at the same time. Because morality prevents you from evil actions, such as murder.
If you were truly free then you could murder people at will. But you’re not free. You choose to value morality, not freedom.
Freedom and morality are conflicting virtues. You cannot value freedom and morality at the same time. If you value freedom then you must destroy morality.
The freest person alive can do atrocious acts, great evil, at will. Only a moral force, morality, can prevent this freest person from committing evil.
Patronizing people is cool and never gets boring. As with most interesting topics, this belongs in mundane babble. Let’s not have a philosophical conversation.
I’m doing my duty to society and freeing everyone else before I free myself. I’m a true martyr. You’re next on my list, incidentally. Coming to free you soooooon.
If your morals are diconnected from your nature, there is a more immediate problem than a lack of freedom. And, of course, this is generally the case. People think of morality as chains on the beast, often. But one need not be capable of atrocious acts to be free. If you would dislike, say, raping a child, it would not be free to do this. Doing this would be chaining yourself to some idea of freedom.
The point is that the truly free would be able to rape a child, as equally as having “virtuous” sex. Both options are open and available. This is false for the moralist. The evil act is impermissible and unforgivable. But for the free, one action is as equal as another. There is no reason not to murder, or become evil. If you equalize the actions of good and evil, and choose evil, then this must constitute a freedom unknown to moralists.
I doubt anybody here can imagine “choosing” good, over evil, if evil were truly open to you. If you could partake in murder, and all other crimes freely, and without retribution, then I doubt you would ever “choose” good. Therefore your good is not a choice. It is forced upon you, enslaving you to your morality.
So if I am free to choose good or evil, but I choose good because evil is distasteful to me, I’m not free?
How the actual fuck does morality prevent freedom?
Am I missing something, or is this OP really stupid? I fail to see how choosing one thing over another displays a lack of freedom. Just because I may be morally opposed to something doesn’t mean I’m not free to do it anyway. I’m just choosing not to.
And now I’m going in circles, but wtf…what am I missing here?
I fixed my terribly spelled sentence a bit above. That said, sure, many people use morality to limit themselves. And in many cases, I am grateful they do. But my point was not that morality does not do this, but that the OP seemed, though I am not sure, to be confused, that some freedom could be found in being able to do anything. There are many despicable acts I do not want to do. I could go against my desires in some pseuo-Nietschian/Crowleyesque reaching for freedom. But that isn’t freedom, that’s just a new way of overriding yourself.
Well, let’s say the morality is around premarital sex. That this is bad. You might think that morality is a bad one adn so you can see the loss of freedom involved if one suppresses oneself in the name of ‘being good’. Your own sense of morals may not seem like this. You may not not notice a split between desire and the rule there. For me the fallacy of the OP is that being ‘able to do horrible things’ is free. If you don’t really like those things then you may not be able to do them, but this is not a reduction in freedom. Though it is not a moral choice, per se.
Well, that and the fact that people can do terrible, immoral things. You can kill people at will, sure. I mean, there will probably be consequences, but you can do it regardless. Morality is an influence, not a concrete barrier. If he’s saying that freedom means being totally free of influence, I seriously doubt anyone thinks we are free by that definition.
