The Three Freedoms

The term freedom has different senses.

In one sense, freedom concerns doing what one pleases in society — that is, being free from coercion or constraint. This, we call freedom of circumstance.

In another sense, freedom concerns doing what one ought. This is the freedom concerning moral character. People who have acquired wisdom and virtue are more free than those weighed down by ignorance and vice. Freedom for excellence, is what we call this one.

In a final sense, freedom concerns our freedom to choose, or volitional freedom. This is the freedom inherent to human nature, concomitant with our rationality. We can consider the space of reasons and because no finite reason determines us, the will can end deliberation. This, we call freedom of choice.

To offer more detail, let’s consider each of the three freedoms again, in reverse order.

Freedom of choice is the denial of determinism. Which is to say human beings can contingently self-determine: we can make ourselves into what we choose to become. Of course, our power to choose is what allows us to form our character, which in turn determines whether we attain freedom for excellence.

Freedom for excellence concerns having right desire — that is, a will habitually ordered toward real versus merely apparent goods. Freedom for excellence, or moral freedom, means making the good at first accessible and then effortless. Temptations from appetites and passions often put us in conflict with real goods. Freedom for excellence is the overcoming of such temptation.

Circumstantial freedom is — as the title implies — dependent upon extrinsic factors; namely, the environment we are situated in. We are circumstantially free when we can do as we please, regardless of what we please to do is good or bad action. To the extent we can carry out the decisions we have made (even if they hurt other people) we are circumstantially free.

Clearly, it is circumstantial freedom that is politically most interesting. How much of it should society allow?