Laws Give Me Freedom
It is a frequently held belief that laws reduce personal freedom. However, I will argue just the opposite: Clear laws, and their consistent application, can increase personal freedom — to which I have a moral claim. Further, such laws are more likely to be found in the public sector than in the private sector.
First, I assert that personal freedom is an innate human right — and as such, I have a moral claim to as much freedom as is reasonably possible. Indeed, Pojman and Fieser list the following as a “candidate for membership in our minimally basic objective moral set”: “Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom” (Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong 37). Having stated such, I also understand that morality dictates respect for others, and cooperation between people. Thus, my personal freedom is not absolute — it must be weighed and balanced against the rights and freedoms of others.
It is important to distinguish between morality on one hand, and law on the other. For the purposes of this paper, “laws” denotes criminal and civil laws, including bylaws. Sometimes morality and laws conflict, sometimes they coincide, and some aspects of morality are not governed by law (Pojman and Fieser 4). Moreover, I assert that the mere existence of reasonable laws promotes the universal moral principle of freedom.
I make two claims, each of which may be counterintuitive to some people. First, promoting a moral society may not be served just by creating laws which directly dictate moral behavior, but also by laws which, while regulating behaviour, actually expand personal freedom. Second, although government might be viewed by some as being restrictive or invasive whereas the private sector promotes “freedom,” it may be precisely the public sector (government) which encourages an ethical society and promotes more personal freedom than does the private sector, in at least some contexts.
Let’s explore the first claim, that laws can promote personal freedom. Some people. e.g., libertarians, might view laws which proscribe certain behavior as infringement on personal freedom — as they obviously are in the simplest sense. For example, let’s say that in a particular jurisdiction, there is a law against public nudity. Nudity is defined as exposure of male or female genitalia, or female breasts. This law inhibits my ability to walk in the park naked, i.e., a restriction on my personal freedom.
On the other hand, this law also defines what is permitted — because according to English law, everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Therefore, I can feel secure in my freedom to walk through the park in whatever unusual outfit I want, say a thong or G-string; and have an expectation that I will not be hindered. Indeed, if I didn’t know what was prohibited, I wouldn’t know what was allowed.
It’s true that the law likely will not correlate precisely with everyone’s subjective morality. Some people would be offended not only by complete nudity, but even by a man wearing a thong in public. In a Hobbesian state of nature with no agreements or laws, I might be threatened by someone (a private person or authority) who was offended, — with no justification necessary — as each person acts as he or she pleases. However, in civil society, there is a consideration of competing values and interests, and a decision is made about how to achieve the best balance — and a law proscribing certain behavior, but inferentially allowing other behavior, is created. Certainly in such a compromise, many are not made completely happy.[1] However, I (reluctantly, perhaps) give up my ability to be naked in exchange for my freedom to wear a thong. Without the law, I would not be secure in either outfit.
Note that it’s important that the rules be clearly and publicly stated, and enforced consistently. If I’m not sure what the dress code is, or if I don’t know specifically what “nudity” entails, I might be afraid to wear anything but conservative clothing for fear of violating an unknown or fuzzy boundary. In such case, my freedom is curtailed by the lack of clarity and/or arbitrariness of enforcement.
Regarding the second claim: It’s relevant to note a distinction between the public and private domains. There is a popular notion that government is restrictive whereas the private sector promotes freedom. Indeed, laissez-faire capitalism seems to offer more freedom, particularly to manufacturers and purveyors of goods and services. Unencumbered corporations have more “freedom” to operate the way they want, even it that entails polluting the air and water, maintaining unsafe workplaces, or mistreating employees. So this idea of “freedom” does not necessarily equate with an ethical or just society.
However, in another sense, the private domain can be restrictive of individual freedom. I can be ejected from a private resort, for example, for no other reason than the management doesn’t like my outfit or my look, or because one of the other guests complains to the management about me.[2] . Further, the owner of private property has no obligation to make rules publicly known or apply them consistently. She can make them up as she goes along.
However, this would not be the case on public property, due to the applicability of English law as described above. As long as my outfit (or lack thereof) or my behaviour was not proscribed by public rules, I can rest assured it is permitted. Another park-goer could complain to the police; however, the police would not be justified in taking action against me. Further, whereas a private business could forbid “objectionable” speech or any type of speech at its own discretion, speech could not be legitimately censored on public property for arbitrary reasons or merely because it was objectionable.[3]
Another example of how the public sector can offer more freedom and security can be found in the workplace. Employees of private companies in the United States are employed “at will,” i.e., they can be terminated for any reason (or no reason)[4]; in Canada private employers can terminate employees without cause but must provide reasonable notice and severance pay (Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. ). However, civil and public service employees are protected by extensive laws and procedures, and cannot be legitimately terminated simply on the whim of a boss or owner (Government of Canada). As an employee in the public sector, I would have more freedom to express my opinions, live the personal life I chose without fear of arbitrary retribution.
In summary, I have argued that although it may not seem obvious at first, clearly defined and consistently applied rules give me freedom, which I consider to be a moral right. Further, governmental limitations on corporate “freedom” via laws and regulation may be required to promote a more ethical society. In some situations, I can be more confident of my personal freedom in the public sector than in the private sector.
[1] Nudists might feel that the law is morally wrong, in that it prohibits behaviour which harms no one. Conversely, those who feel wearing thongs in public is immoral, might claim that the law is insufficient. Those who feel morality requires gender equality might be opposed to unequal dress codes between men and women, e.g., men can be shirtless but women cannot. These would be examples of how laws may not coincide with moral claims.
-
[2] Many jurisdictions prohibit businesses from certain specific types of discrimination, e.g., based on race or gender, and in certain cases sexual orientation.
[3] However, certain types of “speech” are specifically proscribed, e.g., hate speech, incitement to violence, slander.
[4] Many jurisdictions prohibit employers from certain specific types of discrimination, e.g., based on race or gender, and in certain cases sexual orientation.
Works Cited
Government of Canada. Guidelines for Termination or Demotion for Unsatisfactory Performance; Termination or Demotion for Reasons Other than Breaches of Discipline or Misconduct; and Termination of Employment During Probation. n.d. Web. 25 May 2016. <http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=22379>.
Pojman, Louis P. and James Fieser. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2017. Book.
Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. . “You can have employment that is almost at-will.” 13 August 2012. Canadian HR Reporter. Web. 25 May 2016. <http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/canadian-hr-law/archive/2012/08/13/you-can-have-employment-that-is-almost-at-will>.
