We Are Always Free!

A Defense of Indeterministic View of Human Freedom

     Arguing for the Indeterministic Stand, i.e., "human beings are always free!" , I am free to disagree with what you say, but I will always defend your freedom to assert either your Deterministic Stand, i.e., “human beings aren’t free”or Partially Deterministic Stand, i.e., “human beings are neither free nor not-free” 

     To begin with, who can talk about freedom? It is only a conscious being, and it is only in the ability of becoming conscious that one becomes a free being. Can a toddler talks about freedom when it is not conscious about feeding itself which is fundamental to its survival? Then, it is only when one is a conscious being, can he or she claim for his freedom.

     There may be multiplicity of choices in life, but the act of choosing has only two options. Either one chooses, or refrains from choosing. If you are indifferent about choosing, then the choices will slip away without having being claimed or accounted for by a conscious being. For example, one can either choose to kill or not to kill, marry or not to marry, become pregnant or not to become so. There is no mid way here. Can you kill an entity and in the mean time not to kill the same? Can you marry a person and not to marry at the same time? How can you become pregnant and not pregnant simultaneously?

     Thus, whatever may be the choice, the choosing is done by a conscious being in freedom and, therefore, he or she is a free being. Taking the same example of killing mentioned above,  the Determinists would say, "I am not free either to kill or not to kill" (which means that the freedom is a determined property of a person); the Partially Indeterminists would say, "I am either free to kill or not free to kill"; and the Indeterminists would say, "I am free either to kill or not to kill". For example, I have the freedom to say, “I don’t have freedom” or “I am neither free nor not-free”. Had you not being free, how will you have any right to claim and stand for your own postulations?

     No one has right to take away one’s freedom! This is the assertion and belief of the free beings. If we are not free, then the above preposition would imply Anyone has the right to take away one’s freedom. If this is true, may I urge the bench of determinant non-freedom fighters to shut your mouths and sit idle, because you believe an external force (for example “I”) can take away your freedom to defend your stand, because it has a right to do it?

     Moreover, based on the above implied preposition, Anyone has the right to take away one’s freedom, of the Non-Free party and their alleged claim therefore that 'human beings are conditioned creatures', I would urge the oposition bench to focus their attention on one’s own act of Eating. Again, either you eat (take food) or don’t take it. There is no third alternative. There is no 'neither…nor' here as the bench of Indifference Party would argue, but only the 'either…or' stand or the freedom stand. That is, either you are free to eat or to perish in hunger. Does anyone force you to do it (except when you were/are not able to do it by urself)? Moreover, if you have ever fasted, then wasn’t it your own freedom that led you to forgo food - the basic need of your survival? Then, in what way are you conditioned? If you have the freedom to deal with your own life and death, then what type of conditioning do you talk about? 

     If you say that you are baptized in to a religion and therefore your religion is more of ascribed than acquired , don’t you have a freedom to denounce it and find your own source of consolation? Who stopped you from doing it? If your parents, clan, kith and kin and, simply put, your culture or tradition is the hindrance, then don’t you realize that you have made a choice to stay where you are and be happy rather than face discomforts that would haunt you if you were to decide otherwise? So, you were free to choose your happiness right?

     Moreover, if you are trying to say that you don’t have enough freedom in your marriage, job, or in whatever major commitment you have made in life, I would love to know whether you were forced to do so or you made a choice in freedom to commit yourself into that. If you were free then, how come you are not free now?

     You may say that sex is biologically determined and gender is socially determined. Didn’t you know that there is freedom today even to choose your sex and practice your own comfortable Anima or Animus? Can your sex be 'neither penis nor not-vagina' as the Indifference party would say; or 'not penis' (that would anyway imply it to be yes-vagina) or vice-versa as the Deterministic Party would say? moreover, isn’t it directly correlating to your own non-viable stances, 'we arn't free' or 'we are neither free nor not-free', when you have already utilized the freedom to form your stance and defend it? In other words, can you defend your stand without using the word freedom? If the word freedom exists, then does it not mean that freedom exists? Are you a concious being free enough to grasp it?