In 1945 the state of New Hampshire adopted the state motto "Live Free or Die". How vague. Dictionary.com has 36 definitions for the word 'free'when used as an adjective (there's an additional 13 definitions for free when used in other forms). So which one does New Hampshire want? "Exempt from external authority?" "Unrestrained by decency?" "Without cost, payment, or charge?" All of these are definitions of free. It's seems New Hampshire needs to give this motto a little more thought before they go putting their lives on the line, but that's just an opinion.
But what this blog is really about is John Locke and his definition of free. Or more specifically, his definition of free will which he gave in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". First Locke gives a humorous if not sound argument explaining why the term "free will" is illogical.
Locke further explains what the will and freedom are in the next paragraph.For if I mistake not, it follows from what I have said, that the question itself is altogether improper; and it is as insignificant to ask whether man's will be free, as to ask whether his sleep be swift, or his virtue square: liberty being as little applicable to the will, as swiftness of motion is to sleep, or squareness to virtue...and when one well considers it, I think he will as plainly perceive that liberty, which is but a power, belongs only to agents, and cannot be an attribute or modification of the will, which is also but a power. (Bk II Ch XXI Par 14)
And is that faculty [will] anything more in effect than a power; the power of the mind to determine its thought, to the producing, continuing, or stopping any action, as far as it depends on us?...Liberty, on the other side, is the power a man has to do or forbear doing any particular action according as its doing or forbearance has the actual preference in the mind; which is the same thing as to say, according as he himself wills it. (Bk II Ch XXI Par 15)In plain terms, Locke is saying that liberty (used here interchangeably with freedom) is the ability to act in accordance with one's desires or will. Seems reasonable right? WRONG. The flaw in Locke's definition is revealed in his example of the man in the locked room. He tells a story of a man carried while asleep into a room where there is a person he longs to see and speak to. Unbeknown to the man is the fact that he's locked in the room. When the man wakes up he is happy to be where he is because of his current company. By Locke's definition this man is free. The reader has to admit that the man is in the room voluntarily since he would rather not leave the other person. So if you agree with Locke and say that liberty is the ability to act on the desires of the will, he's free, despite his inability to leave the room. This is the part I have a problem with because it just doesn't make sense. Freedom is a state of being. It is generally agreed that a person is free or not free based upon the situation they are in. In Locke's example, the man can go between being free and not free while still remaining in the same situation with the same person. It follows then that his being free is no longer tied to his actual state of being.
So here's my counterexample to further demonstrate the absurdity of the claim. The man wakes up and is excited to see his friend, he's free. The man gets hungry and wants to leave, he's not free. The man finds a bag of chips in the corner, he's free. The chips are stale, he's not free. With his definition, Locke reduces freedom to a state of emotions rather than a state of being. Thus reductio ad absurdum (thank you Intro to Logic) shows that Locke's definition doesn't work. According to Locke, if I'm happy I'm free and that's just not enough for me. Especially in today's day and age when happy can be swallowed with a glass of water or injected intravenously. But I suppose his definition runs a little deeper than that to say if I have all I desire I'm free. Just the same, obvious examples can be given to counter this. What about the starving slave. According to Locke if his master hands him a steak the slave is suddenly 'free' because his most pressing desire is to be there eating the steak. But having food doesn't change the fact that the man is a slave, perhaps a happier slave, but a slave just the same.
This is the moment that separates the critic and the philosopher. A critic will tell why you're wrong. A philosopher will tell you why you're wrong and they're right. I am a philosopher. The flaw in Locke's definition can be over come with a simple addition: liberty is the ability to act according to or in contrast to ones desires. This eliminates absurdities where a person is restricted, but still counted as free. So rather than the traditional idea that to be free is to be able to do whatever you want, I say to be free is the ability to do whatever.
**Let me just clarify and say this is only a part of Locke's definition of free will. There's a first half in which Locke describes how the will isn't freely determined, but man's actions in response to his will are his own. It's from that point that Locke goes on to say that liberty is the ability to act in favor of one's will/desires and it continues on from there.
