Was posed this question from a history teacher when I was back in high school. It always seems to get interesting responses.
Umm, that can really depend. With absolute freedom does that mean we are free to infringe other's freedoms? With absolute security would we at least still be autonomous enough to be aware? There are just so many factors. When it comes down to it though, I'd probably choose absolute freedom. It is dangerous to doubt the power of human good, the truth is with absolute freedom I believe the world would not just be absolute chaos.
I absolutely agree with you. Since, no one has ever really had either and documented it, it is hard to fathom the pros and cons of both. Also, a lot of it comes down to personal preference as some people may prefer creating their own lives while others need to be dependent on others to live happily.
There definitely needs to be more information here. As gordonz88 commented, we need to know if we can infringe other's freedoms or not. I will, based on "absolute", assume that I can infringe other's freedoms at will. Unfortunately, that means that none of them can have absolute freedom. only one superhuman can possibly be completely free (including the power to infringe others). Of course, that's okay; the question only specifies "you" (singular we must assume). The option of absolute security, however, needs far more clarification. Secure from physical harm? Mental harm? Both? I'll assume it's all forms of harm, physical and mental (going on 'absolute' here). Being completely secure from physical and emotional harm pretty much requires that I live in a bubble. I could scrape my wrist walking down the hall so I must be entirely immobile. I also cannot interact with anyone else as anyone might unexpectedly say something which causes mental anguish. As it stands, we're left with being tied down and drugged for the rest of our life to avoid all physical and mental damage. In other words, not really living. Dealing with problems is just a fact of life that we cannot do without. There's one final trick that I think this question brings though. It seems to me that absolute freedom also contains all the desirable aspects of security. Since others cannot infringe on our freedom (else it wouldn't be absolute), we are immune to being physically harmed in any meaningful way as we would lose freedom of action as soon as another person physically restrains or alters us without our consent. It doesn't follow as easily, but it could be argued that the absolutely free human might be immune to theft, either because theft deprives the freedom of owning or because an absolutely free person would not own anything. The obvious choice appears to be absolute freedom without question. It appears to be completely one sided based on my above analysis.
I think that as far as the "absolute freedom" bit goes, the spirit of this question means that each of us is absolutely free from a greater governing body. I think to get caught up in the technicality that if another civilian tries to harm you, steal from you or otherwise infringe upon your freedom then you are not truly free causes you to miss the point about that part of the question. I take this to mean that we are suddenly, at least temporarily, without the Social Contract. Correct me if I am wrong, vince.
True. I regret if I seemed to be dismissive of BT's post.
Jimi Hendrix's "Freedom" and then Blue Mink's "Good Morning Freedom" both just came on back to back and reminded me that I never answered the question for myself. I would have to choose absolute freedom. Eventually the social contract would emerge again and it would be hard going until then but, damn it, it won't be boring.
Regardless of if my interpretation of freedom, my interpretation for "absolute security" must also be rejected for my logic to fail. I see absolute security as practically being in a coma, something I feel almost anyone would say is less desirable than nearly any state of affairs, especially any which contains any sort of reasonable freedom (absolute or not). As such, if you doubt my definition of freedom or my definition of security, but not both, the entire argument still stands strongly I think. I apologize for the delayed response.
Freedom. I believe that the uncertainty of life is what makes life worth living.
I'm pretty sure this word is going to die out sooner or later because of how often defiantly almost fits.
I agree, lest I walk the streets in body armor. No thanks, I'll take my chances.
To be honest, I think we already have Absolute Freedom. We put ourselves in cages, adhering to society, family, religion, etc, but in the end our choices are ours alone. We can choose to defy all expectations put on us and do as we wish. However, we also know there would be consequences to unbridled freedom.
Absolute freedom is the freedom of the community. It is not individual freedom. Absolute freedom guarantees absolute security. If they community is free from hierarchy coercion and violence than it has absolute security.
Is absolute freedom a paradox if it's applied universally rather than to an individual? If no one can place restrictions on one another, this places a restriction on everyone. It seems to me then the question is asking if I would prefer absolute freedom or absolute security, applied to only me and no one else, which is essentially asking if I would rather do whatever I want or be imprisoned. Looking at the question this way, it's biased towards absolute freedom.
To answer this the terms "freedom" and "security" must be more clearly defined. If I had absolute freedom would I be able to do exactly as I pleased? Could I bend the laws of nature to my will, for if I lacked such power I would lack absolute freedom. If I had absolute security what is motivating me to conform to restrictions on my freedom? Assuming the security was permanent, could I not avoid retribution for acting outside of what others tell me to do? I can not resolve these questions, so I can not answer.
One hundred percent absolute freedom. I would dread to live in a world with 100% security. There are so many horror stories in the sci-fi world about that happening. At least with absolute freedom we have some semblance of a chance of being able to live our lives the way we would like to. Even though we would have to compete with others for that possibility, there is no guarantee that we would be able to do anything if we were fully "secured". If you think of it in a governmental point of view, we would be taken over and run by the state. On the other hand if we were guaranteed "freedom" there would be an anarchic state of being where disorder would reign. I'd rather take my chances with chaos rather than sterility.
Absolute freedom. In order to have absolute security, you need to entrust your security to someone or something else. By necessity, this other is more free than you and now you have an inequality of freedom in this hypothetical society. Not that absolute freedom isn without terrible side effects. But at least it comes closer to a level playing field than the other extreme. But obviously neither of these extremes is desirable.
Although it depends on how you define "absolute", I would choose absolute freedom because how am I to decide whether the absolute security is to the benefit of me? I'd rather have anarchy so that I can at least decide the amount of security that's right for me.
Great question. Tough to answer though because it's likely that people will naturally opt in favor of security. Say, for example, a total anarchic, completely free society was created. If there was a big ol bully, small people would band together in the name of security. To have absolutes of either, the other must somehow be mandated.
Well, of course there will be some security in a world based on absolute freedom. Just not absolute security.