There is no shortage of words that connect to the theme of ethics, as discussed in class in conjunction with assigned readings. According to Hull, one of the main links stems from the term “rights”. Which rights are “natural” and which ones are imposed by a political system or community? By Hull’s definition, a natural right is inalienable. It cannot be taken away. It is the sole possession of its owner and permanently attached to that individual. On the contrary, a freedom that is attached to a political document is insecure. It is not a “guarantee “ in the eternal sense because in actuality, it could be taken away – a fact often forgotten or overlooked by those who enjoy freedom in the United States.
It is easy to identify the origin of a freedom: is it a natural freedom or a freedom by government creed? According to Foner, is ethical and in the best interested of freedom to enhance it. In similar accordance, if one truly takes freedom seriously, then they must pay attention to the surrounding social conditions. What conditions must be in place for individuals to exercise both their natural and communal freedoms? What is necessary for freedom to flourish?
I come from a family where freedom is of constant conversation. My grandfather is a World War II veteran and the winner of a purple heart. To date, he is a successful businessman, avid philanthropist and horse-racing fanatic. He has many passions and works daily to pursue them. But besides his family, there is nothing of greater importance than freedom. Because without freedom, could all of these passions, past-times, and extracurricular truly exist? In the eyes of a man who will still only purchase American-made goods, the answer is a clear no. Freedom is the most coveted of ethical “rights”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment