Human Freedom
Human Freedom is an idealistic concept that asserts a basic right of living humans to be that of individual liberty. This notion was largely absent from ancient forms of government (e.g. kingdoms and oligarchy) up to the time of the American Revolution.
Statesmen like Patrick Henry (of the famous quote: "Give me liberty or give me death") live on through their famously fiery rhetoric as codified in the Constitution of the United Sates of America which purports to guarantee personal freedoms such as the right to freedom of speech, freedom of or from religion, and a free press. The question of whether or not this is an achievable goal, is open to debate.
Definition
The definition of human freedom varies in every culture and political ideology.
There is no specific or unique idea that would encompass all the possible variations that this concept may suffer and furthermore, we do not have the right to say which of these definitions is more correct.
As Gearts expresses, communities need ideologies to support each other and be able to develop. By imagining a line where we could draw conclusions on these theories based on the spectrum of the comparisons, it is possible to see the variations of these theories and the extent to which they allow for true human freedom.
By comparing and contrasting from Communism, Socialism, Conservatism, Fascism, and Nazism, we come to know that each of these systems gives to the achievement of self actualization by the societies which they represent.
First of all, the political and economic theory of socialism advocates that land, natural resources and industries should be owned by the community as a whole and not by individual, private groups.
The best way to carry on with this ideology is through the application of a communist social system where all property including the aforementioned benefits, would be owned equally by all members of society and they will all work for the common benefit.
In these systems individualism is not seen as a value, instead, it is an opposing force to communism in pro of capitalism. In people’s democracies as well as in social democracies, economic equality and equal distribution can most successfully be achieved by the implementation of a communist State.
For as long as the State remains powerful and the goals of the community are being equally satisfied through the global objective of self actualization, then the system can be considered as successful at guaranteeing human freedom.
As an opposing force to capitalism and instead of promoting the individual freedoms of a person, communism and socialism promote the importance of working together as a community in the achievement of the mutual goals.
After all, if the goals are mutual, why not work together in achieving them and saving energy in the effort?
Even though these systems seem to put limits on the capabilities approach of each person simply because being considered as an element of the community and not as an individual, it can be seen how the theory of working together for common, basic goals seems to be fair and justified.
The contrasting characteristic of these theories can be best explained by the idea of J.S. Mill who explains that the rule of ignorant masses can give too much power to unprepared individuals who would use tyranny and dictatorships as the only manner to keep control.
Furthermore, putting limits on a person’s self-development opportunities goes against the universal declaration of human rights, this is why there are other systems that offer opposing views and put more emphasis on the superior individual work of a single race.
This is the case of the importance of human freedoms in Nazism and Fascism. Nazism refers to a socialist based party who takes this economic and political theory to the extent of controlling not only where the community should focus its efforts in the sake of society’s goals, but also believes in the superiority of a single race that is naturally entitled to the enjoyment of these benefits.
As well as fascism, extreme right movements are more prone to conserving the background characteristics that culturally define each of our societies.
According to John Locke, humans will always make decisions that will give them the most advantageous position over others and this is a reason for Nazism and Fascism to encourage the creation of a single master race where the mindsets and morals of all are equally shared.
Each society has its own norms, beliefs and values with its own common and individual goals. This explains why, under these two ideologies there is no space for other cultures that would try to put themselves in more advantageous positions as the one that inherently deserves the occupied territory.
Jewish people for example, were seen as a culture illegally occupying European areas in order to make a profit and take advantage of the locals.
This therefore leads, through the power of the masses and the coming to power of ignorant leaders such as Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler (J.S. Mill), to an unsustainable and senseless political system which little by little takes away more individual freedoms from the community in order to keep tyrannical power.
There can not be individual freedoms in a society that believes in elitism, anti-liberal individualism, survival of a master race and other forms of social Darwinism.
In these communities, only those who are part of the so called "master race" are capable of enjoying freedom at the expense of the suffering of others.
Even though we can not blame Nazism and Fascism for the results of the genocidal politics of its known leaders during World War II, we can generalize that if the success and enjoyment of some is based on the suffering and destruction of others, this form of government is not placing much importance on the individual freedoms of most people.
Another political system that can be compared and contrasted with the theories of communism and socialism is expressed in those systems that support conservatism such as the United States.
As mentioned above, communism believes that, as an alternative to capitalism, the working together of the community will lead to the achievement of common goals in the most efficient manner. In conservatism, the ideal of capitalism is essential for the success of these societies, thus the differences between these two theories will consist on the importance that they place on the role of the individual vs. the community.
The public and private spheres of communism and socialism are characterized by high government control and the little opportunity to make individual decisions.
On the other hand, public and private spheres of societies with a more conservative tradition keep government well separated from the decision making process of the individual, specially at the private sphere level.
Capitalist theories of conservatism express that individual freedom leads to competition among members of society and this is the best way to keep people in constant struggle for self actualization.
When people are forced to be individualistic in order to achieve individual goals, be more successful and more valuable as a member of society, they are not living a very important part of life.
On the other hand, the socialist theories that do not allow people to become self actualized at their own pace but instead, become one more piece of the keyboard equally valuable as anyone else, is not allowing for freedom either.
Socialization as different from socialism is the ability to share, understand and mutually engage as a member of a community. As Michael Walzer expressed, communal society encourages equality and justice.
Having a multi-cultural perspective allows for continuous development of societies. Thus, one can believe (conclude) that the importance of human freedom relies on the capabilities of a person to understand other cultures, ideologies and political systems with the highest amount of cultural sensitivity. Encouraging a society where the mutual basic goals can be guaranteed through the communal effort gives equal opportunities to all members of society to do all that is necessary to continuously achieve self actualization.
The democratic ideal will come naturally as a result of the ability of each person to govern oneself as an authentic and unique human being.
The most important anecdote that we can learn is that none of the social, political and economic systems can be forced upon the will of any society. As seen in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, we can not say that capitalism is bad and socialism is good. In order to reach socialism Marx declared that a capitalist society has to create the proper environment for a revolution to take place.
The unique characteristics of all human beings make civilizations different from each other; therefore the natural course of action that a political system suffers is in constant adaptation to the changing values of a society.
For as long as we have the power to feel free to express our thoughts in regards to the social setting of our society and furthermore promote options for change without feeling oppressed by the system in control, then we could say we have achieved human freedom.
Christian Motif
The relationship of violence and Christianity is controversial.1 When asked whether Christianity supports violence and is a violent religion, one can answer "Of course -- look at the crusades, the multiple blessings of wars, warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men, and more". Or one can respond, "Of course not -- look at Jesus, the beginning point of Christian faith, who is worshiped as 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace' (Isa. 9:6); whose Sermon on the Mount taught nonviolence and love of enemies; who faced his accusers nonviolently and then died a nonviolent death; whose nonviolent teaching inspired the first centuries of pacifist Christian history and was subsequently preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism". But these answers are apparently contradictory. Does one of them trump the other? Or might there be yet another answer?
Let us analysis the relationship between violence and Christianity by examining aspects of Christian theology. Specifically, by examining violence and assumptions of violence in the classic formulations of the central Christian doctrines of atonement and Christology. Here we use broad definitions of the terms "violence" and "nonviolence." "Violence" means harm or damage, which obviously includes the direct violence of killing -- in war, capital punishment, murder -- but also covers the range of forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism. "Nonviolence" also covers a spectrum of attitudes and actions, from the classic Mennonite idea of passive nonresistance through active nonviolence and nonviolent resistance that would include various kinds of social action, confrontations and posing of alternatives that do not do bodily harm or injury.
Atonement Motifs
The standard account of the history of doctrine lists three families of atonement theories or images. The first round of observations about the violent elements of these atonement images will emerge from the description of their development and their historical relationship to each other.
Christus Victor, the predominant image of the early church, existed in two forms, each of which involved the three elements of God, the devil or Satan, and sinful humankind. In the ransom version of Christus Victor, the devil held the souls of humankind captive. In a seemingly contractual agreement, God handed Jesus over to Satan as a ransom payment to secure the release of captive souls. The devil killed Jesus, in an apparent victory for the forces of evil. The devil is deceived, however. In raising Jesus from the dead, God triumphed over the devil, and the souls of humanity were freed from his clutches. This victory through resurrection provides the name Christus Victor or Christ the Victor.
A second version of Christus Victor pictured the conflict between Satan and God as a cosmic battle. In this struggle, God's son was killed, but the resurrection then constituted the victory of God over the forces of evil, and definitively identified God as the ruler of the universe. This cosmic battle imagery constitutes another Christus Victor atonement image.
Satisfaction atonement has been the predominant atonement image of the present time as well as for much of the past millennium. It suffices for present purposes to sketch two versions of satisfaction atonement. One reflects the view of Anselm of Canterbury. In 1098 he published Cur Deus Homo, which constitutes the first full articulation of satisfaction atonement. Anselm wrote that Jesus' death was necessary in order to satisfy the offended honor of God. Human sin had offended God's honor and thus had upset divine order in the universe. The death of Jesus as the God-man was then necessary in order to satisfy God's honor and restore the order of the universe.
A change in this image of satisfaction occurred with the Protestant Reformers. For them, Jesus' death satisfied the divine law's requirement that sin be punished. Thus with his death, Jesus submitted to and bore the punishment that was really due to us -- humankind -- as sinners. Jesus was punished in our place. Jesus substituted himself for us, and died a penal substitutionary death.
The third atonement image is moral influence. In this image, the death of Jesus is a loving act of God aimed toward us. God the Father shows love to us sinners by giving us his most precious possession, his Son, to die for us.
Deleting the Devil from Atonement
These theories did not develop as isolated entities. Each emerged as a response to a previous one. In the first book of Cur Deus Homo, Anselm specifically rejected the idea that Jesus' death was a ransom payment to the devil. Satan has no contractual rights that would obligate God to make such a payment. And even though humankind deserves punishment, Satan has no right to inflict that punishment. These considerations make it unworthy of God to deal with Satan via a ransom. Thus Anselm deleted the devil from the salvation equation.2 Rather than seeing human beings as captive to the devil, Anselm made them directly responsible to God. Humans sinned against God; sin offended the honor of God, and thus threatened order in the universe. The death of Jesus served to restore God's honor and thus restore order in the universe.
Abelard's school followed Anselm in rejecting the idea of Jesus' death as a ransom payment to the devil. But Abelard also rejected the idea of Jesus' death as a payment to God. It made God seem vengeful and judgmental. Instead, Abelard saw the death of Jesus aimed not at God but at sinful humankind. It was a loving act of God designed to get the attention of sinners, and reveal the love of God for sinners while they were yet sinners. Its impact on the psychological or moral character of humankind identifies this view as the moral influence theory of atonement.
Thus historical relationships exist among these atonement theories. Anselm's satisfaction motif succeeded ransom, and was subsequently modified by majority Protestantism. Abelard's moral theory posed an alternative to Anselm's satisfaction theory while retaining Anselm's critique of the ransom motif.
Each of these images attempts to explain why "Jesus died for us." But recalling the object or "target" of the death of Jesus makes clear that these images suggest entirely different approaches to understanding the death of Jesus. For ransom and cosmic battle motifs the death of Jesus has the devil as its object. For Anselm, it is aimed at God's honor, while for penal substitution, the object is God's law. Finally, for moral influence, the death of Jesus targets "us," sinful humankind, as its objects.
Retribution in Atonement
The first round of analysis worked on implications drawn from Anselm's deletion of the devil from the atonement equation. This section follows a quite different route to similar conclusions.
The various versions of satisfaction atonement function with the assumption that doing justice or righting wrongs depends on retribution. Sin creates imbalance. Satisfaction atonement assumes that the imbalance is righted or balanced by the punishment of death.
One contemporary version and one historic version of this assumption make clear its presence in satisfaction atonement. The criminal justice system of the United States operates on the principle of retribution. This system operates under the assumption that doing justice means to inflict punishment, which is understood as violence. The assumption is that small crimes require small penalties, while a big crime requires a big penalty. The biggest punishment, namely death, is reserved for the most heinous crimes. The assumption that doing justice is equated with punishment appears in the public disapproval when what is perceived as a big misdeed receives only a "wrist tap" as punishment. With an apparent imbalance between deed and punishment, it seems that justice was not done. The assumption of retributive justice -- that doing justice means meting out punishment -- is virtually universal among North Americans and throughout much of the world.3
The assumption that doing justice means to punish underlies satisfaction atonement, and in particular the image of penal substitutionary atonement. This image assumes the necessity of punishment, with innocent Jesus punished in our place. As our substitute, Jesus bore the punishment we deserve.
The motif of Jesus as the substitute object of punishment, which assumes the principle of retribution, is the particular image that feminists and womanists have found very offensive. It portrays God as the chief exacter of retribution. God punishes -- abuses -- one of God's children for the sake of the others. And the Jesus of this motif models passive submission to innocent and unjust suffering for the sake of others.
The contemporary assumption of retributive justice has a medieval counterpart in the feudal system. Let us follow R. W Southern's description of the feudal system and how Anseim's image reflects his feudal world view. The feudal world was hierarchical. A lord at the top held the hierarchy together. Stability of the system depended on maintaining the honor of the lord at the top of the hierarchy. An offense against the lord's honor incurred a debt that threatened his authority and thus the stability of the system. In order to restore honor and stability, the debt had to be repaid. Inability to collect the debt challenged the honor and authority of the lord.
A modern equivalent might be a teacher who is sassed by her student. Her authority as teacher is threatened if she cannot enact punishment on the disrespectful student. The object of dealing with the student is not punishment per se. It is rather that some kind of compensation for the offense is necessary in order to maintain the integrity and stability of the teacher's authority in her classroom. Or perhaps the perceived sense that stability of the social system demands retribution is like a governor who refuses to pardon an inmate on death row. In the governor's perception, pardoning a death-row inmate would threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system. If one who has violated the law is pardoned, it appears that the system itself is threatened. Again here, one sees punishment as the means to maintain the integrity and stability of the system.
It is not difficult to see that Anselm's image of the atoning death of Jesus reflects the feudal world view. Human sin has brought imbalance and disharmony into the universe. The restoration of harmony, order and balance requires a payment to satisfy the offended honor of God. Anselm understood Jesus' death as the debt payment that satisfied the honor of God, and thus restored balance and order in the universe. The logic of satisfaction atonement can be understood with all the feudal imagery removed from Anselm's argument. As was previously noted, for example, the modern criminal justice system constitutes an arena that assumes and models retribution. There is thus no need to dispute Southern's conclusion that feudal society supplies the motif that Anselm elevated to an ultimate image of the way that God maintains order in the universe. Maintaining order in the universe depends on maintaining the honor of God, which necessitates a debt payment -- the death of Jesus -- to cover the offense to God's honor that was enacted by human sin.
Although Anseim's understanding of satisfaction atonement differs significantly from penal substitutionary atonement, each assumes some form of the idea of retribution. Whereas penal substitution pictures retribution in terms of punishment exacted by divine law, for Anselm it was the offended honor of God that required retribution in the form of the payment of death.
Anseim's satisfaction atonement clearly differs from the penal substitutionary image, in which God punishes Jesus as a substitute for punishing sinful humankind. One recent strategy for defending satisfaction atonement makes a great deal of this difference. The first point of this defense is to acknowledge that feminists and womanists are correct that the images of God and Jesus in penal substitutionary atonement are unhealthy for persons in abusive and oppressive conditions, namely a Father God who punishes an innocent Son, and a Jesus who passively submits to his Father's abuse. The second point is to claim that the image of penal substitution is not true satisfaction atonement as articulated by Anselm. Thus, the would-be defender of satisfaction atonement blames early Protestant reformers for the unhealthy images, and appeals for the true satisfaction motif to the medieval Anselm, where we do not have an angry God who punishes, but rather an image concerned with a defense of God's honor. This God seems not so concerned about Godself as about addressing the disorder and disharmony in the universe produced by human sin. In this view, the argument goes, the death of Jesus is not about having Jesus bear punishment actually merited by human beings, but about restoring order and harmony in the universe.
While clear differences do distinguish these two versions of satisfaction atonement, appealing to Anselm does not absolve satisfaction atonement of its inherent violence. To illustrate that point, visualize atonement in terms of a debt payment to God's honor, and consider again the questions posed earlier.
The above analysis has demonstrated the extent to which presuppositions of violence and overt violence are inherently a part of classic Christian theology. We have also observed that the abstract and ahistorical character of the classic formulas of atonement and Christology mean that they do not challenge injustice in the social order. This combination of intrinsically violent elements and lack of challenge to injustice in the social order mean that it has been possible throughout much of Christian history for Christians to profess allegiance to Jesus and to claim salvation as depicted in classic Christology and atonement, while simultaneously pursuing the violence prohibited by Jesus' teaching and life.
If Christians are uncomfortable with Christianity as a violent religion, the first step is to recognize the extent to which formulas of classic theology have contributed to violence both overt and systemic. The analysis provided data for that acknowledgement. The second step away from Christianity as a violent religion would be to construct theology that specifically reflects the nonviolence of its namesake, Jesus Christ. As a suggestion in that direction, we offer narrative Christus Victor as both nonviolent atonement and narrative Christology. Finally, step three would be to live out the theology of its nonviolent namesake. That commitment is a call to every Christian.
Concept of Freedom
Freedom is the ability to act without restraint. In the context of internal control, freedom is also known as self-determination, individual sovereignty, or autonomy.
The protection of interpersonal freedoms can be the object of a social and political investigation, while the metaphysical foundation of inner freedom is a philosophical and psychological question. Both forms of freedom come together in each individual as the internal and external values mesh together in a dynamic compromise and power struggle; the society fighting for power in defining the values of individuals and the individual fighting for societal acceptance and respect in establishing one's own values in it.
Spiritually, freedom encompasses the peaceful acceptance of reality. The theological question of freedom generally focuses on reconciling the experience or reality of inner freedom with the omnipotence of the divine.
In philosophy
An absence of restraint: It means unwilling to subjugate, lacking submission, or without forceful inequality. The achievement of this form of freedom depends upon a combination of the resist of the individual (or group) and one's (their) environment; if one is in jail or even limited by a lack of resources, this person is free within their power and environment, but not free to defy reality. Natural laws restrict this form of freedom; for instance, no one is free to fly (though we may or may not be free to attempt to do so). Isaiah Berlin appears to call this kind of freedom "negative freedom" - an absence of obstacles put in the way of my action (especially by other people). He distinguishes this from "positive freedom", which refers to my power to make choices leading to action.
Freedom has often been used a rallying cry for revolution or rebellion. For instance, the Bible records the story of Moses leading his people out of slavery, and into freedom. In his famous "I Have a Dream" speech Martin Luther King, Jr. quoted an old spiritual song sung by black American slaves: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty we are free at last!"
Inner autonomy
Freedom can also signify inner autonomy, or mastery over one's inner condition. This has several possible significances:
● the ability to act in accordance with the dictates of reason;
● the ability to act in accordance with one's own true self or values;
● the ability to act in accordance with universal values (such as the True and the Good); and
● the ability to act independently of both the dictates of reason and the urges of desires, i.e. arbitrarily (autonomously).
In a play by Hans Sachs, the Greek philosopher Diogenes speaks to Alexander the Great, saying: You are my servants' servant. The philosopher has conquered fear, lust, and anger; Alexander still serves these masters. Though he has conquered the world without, he has not yet mastered the world within. This kind of mastery is dependent upon no one and nothing other than ourselves. Richard Lovelace’s poem echoes this experience:
Stone walls do not a prison make
Nor iron bars a cage
Minds innocent and quiet take
That for an hermitage
Notable 20th century individuals who have exemplified this form of freedom include Nelson Mandela, Rabbi Leo Baeck, Gandhi, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel.
The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that the condition of freedom was inherent to humanity, an inevitable facet of the possession of a soul and sapience, with the implication that all social interactions subsequent to birth imply a loss of freedom, voluntarily or involuntarily.
Overview
Steiner describes how from two sides of our existence, our experience works to make us unfree. We can easily recognize that our natural being, that part of us we share with the animal world - our drives and desires, our prejudices and habits - tends to determine our deeds and soul life from one side. Just as constraining, however, are the dictates of conscience and abstract ethical or moral principles. Freedom, he says, is only possible because these various constraining factors work in contradictory directions. Between the impulses of our two natures, neither of which is individualized, we find the freedom to choose how to think and act. By overcoming the dictates of both our 'lower' and 'higher' sources of experience, we become true and free individuals.
At least since Kant’s time, most western philosophy has recognized that dualism is innate to human consciousness. This dualism arises because we perceive the outer nature of the world and its inner nature in radically separated ways. Our sensory perceptions inform us about the outer appearance of the world, while our thought life penetrates its inner nature. This division is particular to and defines human experience. Steiner suggests that we actually have the capacity to overcome the dualism of experience by reuniting perception and thought.
By both perceiving and thinking through a subject, and then bringing our perceptions and conceptions of this subject into harmony, we establish a unified relationship to the world. This relationship is also a free one, as out of it we can act without being determined by one or the other side of our dualistic experience.
It is notable that Steiner expressly includes our subjective, inner life as one of the realms we perceive dualistically, and thus in which we are initially unfree. Our inner subjectivity is thus as much in need of our overcoming its essential duality and unfree nature, as our experience of the objective outer world is.
He proposes that once we have brought the two sides of our experience into harmony, we need to forge a new synthesis of these at every moment in a situationally-appropriate, free deed. Steiner coins the term moral imagination for this act of creative synthesis. He says we only succeed in achieving freedom when we find a moral imagination, an ethically impelled but particularized response to the immediacy of a given situation. This response will always be individual; it cannot be predicted or prescribed. This radical moral individualism is characteristic of freedom.
Exercising freedom
Steiner begins the second section of this work by emphasizing the role of self-awareness, of the awakening of the ego, in objective thinking. Here he modifies the usual description of inner and outer experience by pointing out that our feelings, for example, are given to us as naively as outer perceptions. Both of these, feelings and perceptions, tell about objects we are interested in: the one about ourselves, the other about the world. Both require the help of thinking to penetrate the reasons why they arise, to comprehend their inner message. The same is true of our will. Whereas our feelings tell how the world affects us, our will tells how we would affect the world. Neither attains to true objectivity, for both mix together the world's existence and our inner life in an unclear way. He emphasizes that we experience our feelings and will - and our perceptions as well - as being more essentially part of us than our thinking; the former are more basic, more natural. He celebrates this gift of natural, direct experience, but points out that this experience is still dualistic in the sense that it only encompasses one side of the world.
This all is by way of introduction and recapitulation. Steiner then introduces the principle that we can act out of the compulsions of our natural being (reflexes, drives, desires) or out of the compulsion of ethical principles, and that neither of these leaves me free. Between them, however, is an individual insight, a situational ethic, that arises neither from abstract principles nor from my bodily impulses. A deed that arises in this way can be said to be truly free; it is also both unpredictable and wholly individual. Here Steiner articulates his fundamental maxim of social life:
Live through deeds of love, and let others live with understanding for each person's unique intentions.
Here he reconnects with Schiller's polar view of the influences on human nature, stating that morality transcends both the determining factors of bodily influences and those of convention:
A moral misunderstanding, a clash, is out of the question between people who are morally free. Only one who is morally unfree, who obeys bodily instincts or conventional demands of duty, turns away from a fellow human being if the latter does not obey the same instincts and demands as himself.
Morality is completely situational and individual; true morality depends upon our achieving freedom from both our inner drives and outer pressures. In order to achieve such free deeds, we must cultivate our moral imagination, our ability to imaginatively create ethically sound and practical solutions to new situations, in fact, to forge our own ethical principles and to transform these flexibly as needed - not in the service of our own egotistical purposes, but in the face of new demands and situations.
Steiner concludes the whole presentation by pointing out that in order to achieve this level of freedom, we must lift ourselves out of our group-existence: out of the prejudices we receive from our family, nation, ethnic group and religion, out of all that we inherit from the past that limits our creative and imaginative freedom to meet the world directly. Only when we realize our potential to be a unique individual are we free. Again, it lies in our freedom to achieve freedom; only when we actively strive towards freedom do we have some chance of attaining it.
Process of Moral Reasoning
Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychologist who devoted twenty years to the study of
moral development, has stated that there is a three level, six stage process of
maturation in the development of moral reasoning. He holds that everyone begins
at Level one, Stage one, but that very few people ever develop beyond stage four.
Following is a concise and over-simplified summary of Kohlberg's stages and their
concomitant effect on values and motives.
Level One
Determination of whether something is good or bad, or right or wrong is made in terms of whether the consequences will be pleasant or unpleasant, or in terms of the physical power of those who might punish or reward. Pleasantness is directly related to punishment, rewards, exchanges of favors, etc. The person sees things from his/her own point of view and is primarily motivated by self-interest. Example: Childhood perception.
Stage One -- Punishment and obedience. An action that results in physical punishment is bad, one that does not result in physical punishment is good. Power and punishment avoidance are valued in their own right. Very little, if any, realization that others have similar needs. Example: Oral stage (0-1 year)of socialization process. Here child is ignorant about the social system; the sub-system of child and mother is a system for him/her.
Stage Two -- Personal usefulness. An action that satisfies one’s own needs, and occasionally the needs of others, is a morally good action. Human relations consist of exchanging favors or revenge. Satisfying the needs of others is a means of getting what a person wants. Example: Anal stage (1-4)of socialization process. Here child gets toilet training, in-between he/she intermingles with the family members, through smiles for favor.
Level Two
A person’s own immediate needs are subordinate to group needs. Support of family, group, or nation is a value independent of the individual. Group order and stability are actively maintained. Loyalty to the group and its norms is of paramount importance. Actions are good or bad depending on whether they conform to the rules and expectations of the group. Situations are seen from the point of view of the group and everyone is assumed to be similar. Example: Peer Group.
Stage Three -- Group conformity. Doing that which gets approval, or avoids disapproval, of family, friends and close associates. What is right or wrong is determined by the will of the majority--constitutes “natural” behavior. Motivation to do right is to be seen as a good person, or a nice person, in your own eyes and the eyes of others. Example: Oedipal and Adolescence Stage. At this stage child is inculcated with norms and values of the group or system. He/she is expected to behave according to normative pattern and is rewarded of it.
Stage Four -- Law and Order. Rules are obeyed because they are the rules. People are part of a larger social system in which individual roles and obligations are defined. Norms generated by that social system are separated from personal and immediate social group norms. The larger social order is superior to groups and respect is given to authority. The social order is maintained as valuable for its own sake. National loyalty is primary. Rules define right and wrong. Example: Adulthood. When an individual becomes member of the real world.
Level Three
There is an attempt here to determine right and wrong in terms of some universal or general set of values and principles. Values and norms of social groups, large or small, are not accepted if they cannot be justified by universal moral principles. Values and principles are not morally justifiable just because they emanate from authority, power or a group with which one identifies. Moral principles are self-identified principles which can be applied universally. Position in a given society, or belonging to a particular society, do not determine moral values. They are values which a person would be willing to accept and abide by no matter what society they belonged to or their status in that society. The key is to be able to justify those moral principles to any rational person. Example: Scientific Approach. The highest moral principles should be based on rational thinking and universality. Intuition must be justified by a logical process. Basic assumptions must be stated and they must be critically analyzed.
Stage Five -- Social contract, “natural law.” Right and wrong are defined by a set of general values that society has agreed upon by the democratic process. These values are general and theoretical such as freedom, justice, equality, fairness, mercy, etc. Beyond those concepts and values, right and wrong are matters of personal values and opinion. To be valid those moral
principles which are outside the democratic consensus must be justifiable to any rational individual. In this stage individuals attempt to solve moral issues by passing laws, however, laws are not sacrosanct at this stage. They are subject to challenge if they violate more general humane principles. Example: Rational Approach. Democracy, freedom of speech, thoughts and religion are universal values. Child abuse or human trafficking etc. is considered social evils.
Stage Six – Personal conscience and universality. The guiding moral principles are general and apply to everyone everywhere no matter what the social status or the society in which they live. These principles are consistent, universal and logically comprehensive. These are not concrete statements of moral rules such as the ten commandments, but are abstract concepts such as the golden rule. These moral principles are the basis for evaluating all moral rules and arrangements, even those arising out of the Ethical Process, democratic consensus. Morals are a matter of personal conscience, where personal conscience is guided by the general moral principles. Example: Superego. The Superego is that part of the personality that operates as the conscience, aiming for perfection, controlling the function of the Ego by placing moral constraints on it. Such as denying homosexuality or illegal sex act.
The stages are sequential and an individual develops and proceeds through each stage before moving to the next. No stages are jumped. It is, however, not a certainty that an individual will pass to the next stage. As stated earlier, Kohlberg holds that most Americans never develop beyond stages 3 or 4. Most of us can name adults who we are convinced have not developed beyond stage 1.
Theory of Natural Law
Natural law theory is one of the most important theories in the philosophy of Classical Realism. The concept of natural law has taken several forms. The idea began with the ancient Greeks' conception of a universe governed in every particular by an eternal, immutable law and in their distinction between what is just by nature and just by convention. Stoicism provided the most complete classical formulation of natural law. The Stoics argued that the universe is governed by reason, or rational principle; they further argued that all humans have reason within them and can therefore know and obey its law. Because human beings have the faculty of choice (a free will), they will not necessarily obey the law; if they act in accordance with reason, however, they will be "following nature."
Christian philosophers readily adapted Stoic natural law theory, identifying natural law with the law of God. For Thomas Aquinas, natural law is that part of the eternal law of God ("the reason of divine wisdom") which is knowable by human beings by means of their powers of reason. Human, or positive, law is the application of natural law to particular social circumstances. Like the Stoics, Aquinas believed that a positive law that violates natural law is not true law.
With the secularization of society resulting from the Renaissance and Reformation, natural law theory found a new basis in human reason. The 17th-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius believed that humans by nature are not only reasonable but social. Thus the rules that are "natural" to them -- those dictated by reason alone -- are those which enable them to live in harmony with one another. From this argument, by the way, Grotius developed the first comprehensive theory of international law.
Natural law theory eventually gave rise to a concept of "natural rights." John Locke argued that human beings in the state of nature are free and equal, yet insecure in their freedom. When they enter society they surrender only such rights as are necessary for their security and for the common good. Each individual retains fundamental prerogatives drawn from natural law relating to the integrity of person and property (natural rights). This natural rights theory provided a philosophical basis for both the American and French revolutions. Thomas Jefferson used the natural law theory to justify his trinity of "inalienable rights" which were stated in the United States Declaration of Independence.
During the 19th century natural law theory lost influence as utilitarianism and Benthamism, positivism, materialism, and the historical school of jurisprudence became dominant. In the 20th century, however, natural law theory has received new attention, partly in reaction to the rise of totalitarianism and an increased interest in human rights throughout the world. With this contemporary interest in mind, let's now turn to our attention to the natural law theory as understood by the tradition of Classical Realism.
What do we mean by "natural law"? In its simplest definition, natural law is that "unwritten law" that is more or less the same for everyone everywhere. To be more exact, natural law is the concept of a body of moral principles that is common to all humankind and, as generally posited, is recognizable by human reason alone. Natural law is therefore distinguished from -- and provides a standard for -- positive law, the formal legal enactments of a particular society.
Since law must always be some dictate of reason, natural law also will be some dictate of reason. In fact, it is law discovered by human reason. Our normal and natural grasp of the natural law is effected by reason, that is, by the thinking mind, and in this service reason is sometimes called "conscience." We, in all our human acts, inevitably see them in their relation to the natural law, and we mentally pronounce upon their agreement or disagreement with the natural law. Such a pronouncement may be called a "judgment of conscience." The "norm" of morality is the natural law as applied by conscience. Lastly, we can say that the natural law is the disposition of things as known by our human reason and to which we must conform ourselves if we are to realize our proper end or "good" as human beings.
To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law:
is not made by human beings;
is based on the structure of reality itself;
is the same for all human beings and at all times;
is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover;
is the naturally knowable moral law;
is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good.
It is interesting to note that virtually everyone seems to have some knowledge of natural law even before such knowledge is codified and formalized. Even young children make an appeal to "fair play," demand that things be "fair and square," and older children and adults often apply the "golden rule." When doing so, they are spontaneously invoking the natural law. This is why many proponents of the natural law theory say it is the law which is "written upon the hearts of men."
Now, our reflection on our own conduct gives rise to the explicit formulation of the precepts of the natural law. We as human beings put our "commonsense" notions of natural law under "critical examination." In other words, our natural impulses toward "fair play," justice, and so on are subject to a rigorous investigation and rationalization. And our understanding of natural law becomes more precise as we consider and codify the principles or precepts of natural law. The primary precept of natural law will be the most basic principle about human action that can be formulated.
If we recall Classical Realism it would be clear that there is an absolutely first and indemonstrable principle in the speculative order of things. That is, there is an absolutely basic, self-evident truth of reality upon which we build our entire metaphysics which serves as the foundation for our view of the ultimate structure of reality. This is the Principle of Contradiction, from which we derive other basic principles such as Identity and Excluded Middle. Strictly speaking, the Principle of Contradiction cannot be "proved." It must be accepted as an absolute "intuitive" or self-evident truth, the truth of which is shown by an analysis of the terms of the Principle and the impossibility of thinking the opposite.
Natural law theory is of the "practical order" of things and the first principle of the practical order is a principle that directs human acts in all their operations, and it will be concerned with the "good," since we act in terms of what a least seems good to us. Therefore, the primary principle of the practical order -- the first precept of natural law -- is a formulation based upon the notion of the good and is stated in the following way: The "good" (according to reason) must be done, and evil (what is contrary to reason) must be avoided. The simplest statement of this precept is, of course, "Do good and avoid evil."
Although we rarely express the precept of "Do good and avoid evil" explicitly (just as we rarely state the Principle of Contradiction explicitly in daily life), nevertheless we always act in terms of such a precept. This fact points to the fundamental truth of such a precept, and indicates how it expresses something "natural" to human beings. A human being naturally inclines to seek what appears good to reason, and naturally shrinks from what appears to be evil. Hence, the justification of speaking of this basic moral law as "natural" law.
Upon further reflection, we can distinguish, within natural law, primary and secondary precepts. The primary precepts will correspond to the order of natural inclinations in human beings. The most fundamental inclination of all, "Do good and avoid evil," will give rise to other primary precepts such as the natural inclination to self-preservation, to live in society, to avoid harm to others, and to know truths about the reality we live in and our own human nature. These primary precepts are unchangeable to the extent they concern the primary ends of the natural inclinations inherent in all human beings.
The primary precepts are very general in their formulation. The secondary precepts, on the other hand, are more particular or specific and are concerned with things to which we are not inclined so immediately. Among these are such precepts as those regarding the education of children, and the stability of family life, and the demands of hospitality. On the negative side, we also have secondary precepts regarding the neglect of children, deliberate injury to others, and so on.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Natural Law Theory
Strengths:
It allows you to have a clear sense of what is right and wrong, based on your religious and spiritual beliefs. Hence, things that are “unnatural” or “not what God intended” or “not in keeping with the way things are supposed to be” are wrong, and staying away from those kinds of decisions will likely keep you on the right path
Weaknesses:
Organized religion that defines “natural law” is sometimes in conflict with scientific or cultural progressions affecting morality. Science has cast doubt on a divine order to the universe that we simply need to follow for proper behavior. For example, the Catholic Church would say that birth control is against the natural law. However, culturally most people believe in having fewer children than nature would bring, and scientifically, we know that certain contraceptives help prevent disease, which is something that we also wish to support culturally but may be in conflict with “natural law.”
Religion often provides conflicting advice on morality, so that moral guidance is unclear. Morality is independent of religion according to the perspective that houses philosophy and moral theory. For example, there are conflicting views in the Bible about the same issue, such as how to treat your wife. Or, you may require a person to interpret what the book says – which leaves you further removed from moral authority.
The obvious conclusion here is that our knowledge of natural law, is incomplete, and probably will always be incomplete. Values of the Wise believes that you have the capacity to be a good person, to decide what your values are and how to live them. We, as civilized and rational human beings, will always be involved in a "critical examination" of our actions in the practical order. Out of this reflection will come new and refined "truths" regarding ethics and moral philosophy.
Natural law related to a Christian understanding “conscience”
Christian natural law
Despite pagan associations with natural law theory, a number (though not all) of the early Church Fathers sought to incorporate it into Christianity (the suspect devotion of the Stoics to pagan worship no doubt aided in this adoption). This was true in the West more so than in the East. The most notable among these was Augustine of Hippo, who equated natural law with man's prelapsarian state; as such, a life according to nature was no longer possible and men needed instead to seek salvation through the divine law and grace. In the Twelfth Century, Gratian reversed this, equating the natural and divine laws.
Thomas Aquinas restored Natural Law to its independent state, asserting that, as the perfection of human reason, it could approach but not fully comprehend the Eternal law and needed to be supplemented by Divine law.
All human laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law was in a sense no law at all. At this point, the natural law was not only used to pass judgment on the moral worth of various laws, but also to determine what the law said in the first place. This could result in some tension.
The natural law was inherently teleological in that it aimed at human happiness. Its content was therefore determined by a conception of what things constituted happiness, be they temporal satisfaction or salvation. The state, in being bound by the natural law, was conceived as an institution directed at bringing its subjects to true happiness.
Conscience in Catholic theology
Conscience, in Catholic theology, is "a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1778). Catholics are called to examine their conscience before confession.
Obedience to conscience has been claimed by many dissenters as a God-given right, from Martin Luther, who said (or reputedly said), "Here I stand, I can do no other," to progressive Catholics who disagree with certain doctrines or dogmas. The Church eventually agreed, saying, "Man has the right to act according to his conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters". In certain situations involving individual personal decisions that are incompatible with church law, some pastors rely on the use of the internal forum solution.
However, the Catholic Church has warned that "rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching...can be at the source of errors in judgment in moral conduct".
Conscience in Protestant theology
The Reformation began with Luther’s crisis of conscience. And for many Protestants, following one's conscience can rank higher than obedience to church authorities or accepted interpretations of the Bible. One example of a Protestant theologian who caused his church to rethink the issue of conscience was William Robertson Smith of the Free Church of Scotland (1843-1900). Tried for heresy because of his use of modern methods of interpreting the Old Testament, he received only a token punishment. However the case contributed to a situation in which many Protestant denominations allow a wide variety of beliefs and practices to be held by their members in accordance with their conscience.
Contemporary Understanding
The Roman Catholic Church continues to hold the view of natural law set forth by Thomas Aquinas, particularly in his Summa Theologiae, and often as filtered through the School of Salamanca. This view is also shared by some Protestant churches.
They understand human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked. Humans are capable of discerning the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience. There are many manifestations of the good that we can pursue. Some, like procreation, are common to other animals, while others, like the pursuit of truth, are inclinations peculiar to the capacities of human beings.
To know what is right, one must use one's reason and apply it to Aquinas' precepts. The most important is the primary precept, self preservation. There are also four subsidiary precepts: procreation, education of children, living in society, and worshipping God (veneration). In addition to these, there are secondary precepts, which Aquinas did not specify like the other five. Therefore, for a deontological ethical theory they are open to a surprisingly large amount of interpretation and flexibility. Any rule that helps man to live up to the primary or subsidiary precepts can be a secondary precept, for example: Drunkenness is wrong because it injures one's health, and worse, destroys one's ability to reason, which is fundamental to man as a rational animal (i.e. does not support self preservation). Theft is wrong because it destroys social relations, and man is by nature a social animal (i.e. does not support the subsidiary precept of living in society).
Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also know as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one's motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don’t always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with Aquinas's cardinal or theological virtues. Cardinal virtues are acquired through reason applied to nature; they are:
Prudence
Justice
Fortitude
Temperance
His theological virtues are:
Hope
Charity
Faith
According to Aquinas, to lack any of these virtues is to lack the ability to make a moral choice. For example, consider a man who possesses the virtues of justice, prudence, and fortitude, yet lacks temperance. Due to his lack of self control and desire for pleasure, despite his good intentions, he will find himself swaying from the moral path.

Laptop Service Manual

Laptop service manual is a handy guide to sort out petty problems and/or upgrade your notebook. With the rising competition in electronic market all big companies are busy innovating some new device or program to maintain there superior position in their respective industry. General consumers bear the brunt of this throat-cut competition; they feel the frustration of getting their new notebook turning old model within a span of few months or even days. Here the manual turns to be of great help, it recommends the procedure to upgrade their new laptop with latest programs or device what so ever it may be.1

Laptop service manual prescribes the ways to tackle laptop troubleshooting. Most common problems faced by people are loss of memory (RAM), LCD display, lockups, battery dysfunction etc. The manual has an elaborate description about the model and the components in the equipments and deals how to upgrade or sort out the problem. Mostly, there are two main components which need to be upgraded: 1. hard drive 2. memory. But, if you have a bit of knowledge of solder processor, motherboard can also be replaced. Battery problem in a laptop is most frequent. Here one should be aware about the type of battery your laptop is using, that is, nickel-cadmium or lithium.

Some batteries working efficiency increases if it is charged when half discharged, but latest models accept first full discharging and then get on charging constantly for better performance. Next, one should maintain the standard operating temperature range of the battery or it will function less efficiently. Best way to utilize full potential of your battery is to avoid unnecessary programs, because even background programs wastes precious powers. If your laptop shuts down for few seconds and video appears on the screen, it could be LCD problem. It may not be a major problem but just improper plugging of the video cable, better to unplug the LCD display assembly and check that all connectors are seated perfectly.

One more familiar problem of laptop is its sudden lockups. In such situation first treatment should be running an antivirus program, then preferably spyware removal tool. If problem persists you should check C: drive, because due to low space random lockups may be happening. There should be more than 20 per cent space remaining in the C drive for smooth functioning of the laptop. Overheating could also be the cause of the problem. Check buildup dust or lint inside the case and make sure that the temperature inside is within the preset limits. Be careful while cleaning inside the computer case, it contains high voltage, so always use plastic crevice tool to handle it. For all above difficulties one can depend upon the laptop service manual.

Laptop Repair Manual

Laptop repair manuals are for those people who want to know troubleshooting problems, functioning and a complete knowledge of the laptop. It is the best place where you can find tips of laptops diagnosis and cleaning information, its protection and procedure to solve most common laptops problems. It instruct through the guidebook to understand and repair your notebook. The general information available in the manual are about maintaining the laptop and precautions, virus protection advice, solving common errors, fixing motherboard, software upgrading and installation and laptop troubleshooting methods. One worthy maintenance tip advices to use flat surface for keeping laptops or it may lead to overheating problems.

Laptop repair manual prescribes the way to protect battery and enhance its longevity. Battery should always be removed if not in use, other to it, when battery is full charged unplug the AC adapter. To save your laptop from immediate power surge it recommends using power surge protector. For maximizing laptops battery life keep few programs open and resist from performing those programs which affects the speed of your laptop by slow downing it. Wastage of battery power could also take place by running programs at the background. Your laptop has many useful features, but it is advised to uninstall unwanted programs because these too lead to power consumption.

Battery disorder, lockups or memory failure are some of the common problems found in laptops. If your laptop is suffering from sudden lockups, then first thing to do is to run an antivirus program and adware or spyware removal tool. Their can be some other reasons for this lockups. May this be happening due to overheating, so make sure that the temperature inside the case is not beyond the preset limits. Sometime due to dust buildups, or fans inside the case causes overheating. One more potential reason could be less space in the C drive, so check it and get confirmed that there is not less than 20 per cent space left. If the trouble persists it could be due to corrupt logical structure.

If your laptop has problem of video failure it is sensible to check the status of the power. If you used to hear fan of your laptop but now you can’t, it means it’s a power or mainboard failure, and not a video failure. Now connect an external monitor with a standard VGA connector, if the external monitor of your laptop does not light up it indicates that either the motherboard or the internal video adapter has failed. In case external monitor works fine, your laptop video subsystem has become dysfunctional. Similarly, if screen brightness flicker, there is possibility of backlight or inverter failure. In this way laptop repair manual with easy step-to-step guidelines, helps solve the problem.