As i read the excerpt by Green i really started to think about the inner conflicts that arise from ideologies. That the society as a whole is always going to be interdependent on eachother, and that no matter what if one person in a community is affected, everyone is. The conflict of the ideology came up with me when i read about all of this connected to freedom. That we are only free from nature if we give up some of our freedom to a governemnt. This was interesting to me. The point he made when he asking the question, Wouldall of the rules and regulations we have through legislation come about naturally without legislation? was a very good point. This idea relates back to hobbes, saying that without rule, society would be barbaric. But there is also the conflicting idea coming from Adam Smith that people naturally benefit together for the greater good. This reading really got me going onto the inner conflicts of ideologies.
The three observations that Dewey made were that: 1) Liberty is Power, not just an idea. 2) The power of liberty can only be legitimized if it can be related. and 3) Liberty is way of setting restraint and controls at a time. he had some points that sort of went against Green's. One of them was that you do not have to sacrifice liberty in order to recieve social control. While one f greens main points was that it was necessary. I liked Deweys last point about social control, that we do have it, but it is in the hands of those who have economic power, which leads to the deprivation of others liberties, and causes other social issues. This idea made me think about how we are given all of these freedoms in our society today, but so many other things control our community, locally and nationally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You make very good points about the connections between the community and the sacrifices made for the social order of the whole. I am one of those people who believe that some sacrifices of liberties must be made in order to escape that "state of nature" for the benefit of social order. I definitely agree with Dewey's point about economic standing controlling power, and that people are left out. And if you think about the time that Dewey was writing, during/after the great depression, people were more interested in providing themselves with economic wealth rather than the collective.
"Wherever there is liberty at one place, there is restraint at some other place." This is still true to this day.
Your description of Green's short essay is very accurate. Green believes that it is impossible to be completely free. Even savages are the slave of nature, according to Green. He argues that for individuals to experience the most liberty, happiness, and wealth there must be limitations on freedom. Green's essay seemed to imply that like Smith stated, working as a community is the best way to freedom.
Dewey's short essay, on the other hand, started off stating that those seeking liberty were being opposed by others seeking liberty. To me this meant that the definition of liberty is different to everyone. And for the most part the want for liberty is ultimately the want for power. To me Dewey's essay seemed to state that people were working against each other to obtain power and liberty.
The first question you addressed sparked my interest as well, except, I looked at it from Green's perspective. However, you said that Green's idea was that you have to give up some liberties to gain freedom. I saw it more as Green saying we have to submit to the government or society in place to guarantee our freedoms. It seems that either way, we must sacrifice something to guarantee freedom, which we, now, believe is given to us automatically. We are all indeed connected, and because of this, we must all be liberated equally to contribute to society. If everyone instead followed the notion that freedom was being given the right to do what you want to do, it would allow for exploitation and oppression. Because that is how most of society looks at freedom today, you can see where it turns dangerously close to oppression. In the cases of big business, because they feel they have "freedom" they tend to lean toward their freedom to exploit small countries. So i guess, freedom can be dangerous...?
Green's point that you mention about whether or not rules and regulations would come about naturally or whether freedom would arise naturally without legislation and government in a very interesting question to ponder. My contention is that it is in fact government and cohesion within society that actually gives us freedom and that without some sort of societal organization granting us as a whole individual freedoms, people would be reduced to selfishness and an "every man for himself" mentality. We may have to give up some of our freedoms to the government, but it may in fact be that government that gives us any real freedom at all.
The idea of sacrifice of liberty for greater social control is a topic that both Green and Dewey dance around, as you mentioned. In this case don't think either of them is right or wrong. I think it is much more circumstantial than that and it all depends on the type of government running a society. Social control may sometimes require letting go of some individual freedoms for the greater good (patriot act), but overall a well run government shouldn't have to do that.
Post a Comment