Human Person and Freedom

Conceptual Guises of Freedom

• Liberalism (Immanuel Kant)

• Existentialism (Jean Paul Sartre)

• Communitarianism (Axel Honeth)

Immanuel Kant's Conception of Liberal Autonomy

For Kant, there are two important

components of the theory of liberalism:

Moral

Epistemological

This means that when considering the

liberal position, we must also consider
the nuances of the scope that this
concept covers.
• In liberalism, every person always has a say
about literally everything.

• For instance, if I claim that stealing is

morally unacceptable, I know, for sure, that
I am obliged to justify or defend my claim.

At the same time, I also must recognize that

the other individuals can disprove my claim
depending on the convincing capacity of
their counter-rebuttals.
Kant's liberalism is a theoretical tool,
which posits an existence of a
"universal subject" or a
"transcendental ego" who possess the
capacity of understanding how the
physical nature emerges from its basic
material components and can predict
her movements (McCarthy, 1994, pp.
472-473).
To wit, we can think of this "universal
subjects" as a reference to each and
every human person we deal with
every day.
What makes this universal subject a "transcendental one"?

• It is her capacity to abstract or detach

from surrounding contexts when
drawing upon decisions about
important things.

• We are equipped with a rational

capacity, the human person is raised
to the level of an idea and now calls
herself a "transcendental ego".
Therefore in exercising her freedom, that is,
"autonomy", the ego strips itself of all of its
attachments to the world.

When deciding right from wrong, she summons the

conceptual themes on her mind as bases for her
decisions.

The transcendental subject then is the host for the

perfect exercise of the rational capacity, that is, the
capacity to talk about things or events and ideas
rationally.

These ultra powerful cognitive templates Kant calls

"the categories of the human understanding" (Kant,
2007, pp. 95-110).
The autonomous subject then follows
only the command which is issued by
and from her very self. This is the full
expression of rationality: to be certain
about the rectitude of a decision or an
action, one has to consult only the
voice of her own reason and none
other.
What Kant wants us is to not give in to our desires.
Rather we submit to our desires to the scrutiny of
reason.

Only in this manner can our decisions become

discretion themselves.

This means that, when we weigh things up, we

must alwasy consider that other people are
involved in the discerning moment itself. It may be
true that other people are important although we
do not really have to abide by every wish that the
other would want us to do.
Thus, for Kant, liberal autonomy is
submission to the self-made duty
founded on independent decision-
making guided by one's own capacity
for understanding. Here, deontology
comes in.
According to Michael Sandel, deontology
refers to the adherence to the call of
duty.This duty issues from human reason,
not from varying instinctual interplay from
human person.

The highest human expression is the

fulfillment of her duty to God and humanity. It
is only then when one is able to deny her
pleasure for the sake of carrying out her duty
can one truly exercise the full expression of
her freedom.
But if there is this duty that embodies
our freedom, this is what Kant calls,
categorical imperative. It is a duty that
sets no condition.
 Categorical Imperative

1. "Act in such a way that the maxim of

your actions can become a universal
law".

2. "Always treat the human person

whether in your own person or that of
another as ends and not simply as
means".
 Jean Paul Sartre's Existential Freedom

Freedom rests on the realization that we

exists and from here we create the meaning
of our life.

This is the characteristics of human freedom,

one which proceeds from his nature as
being conscious of his own being, as a "for-
itself"
The "being-for-itself" refers exclusively to
the human person.

It means that the human person is the

only kind of being who is conscious of its
own, even conscious about its
consciousness.

But as "being-for-itself", man first exists as

an "entity".
 What is an entity?
An entity is anything that exists. These entities are called, "being-in-
itself"
According to Sartre, an entity
manifests a specific "facticity", or the
recognizable feature of the thing that is
"there" - "a there-being".

The first condition of human freedom is

her being-there, that is, "presence".
However, to be present is one thing, and to be
conscious of this very presence is another.

"Being-conscious-of-itself" is the other

character of the human person.

Human person is the only self-conscious

entity among other entities and this self-
awareness enables her to apprehend a self-
image and prescribe guidance for her actions.
Since then, the for-itself which, according to
Sartre, is "the ontological foundation of
consciousness".

What happens in here is that, the for-itself

decides what becomes of an in-itself: the
former either destroys, that is, "nihilates" or
transforms the latter. Either one, the in-itself
remains at the mercy of the for-itself.

This is where human freedom comes into the

scene.
According to Sartre, we are thrown into the world.

The human person's "throwness" suggests the fact

that the human person exists, and that this very
existence, regardless of fortune, is not even a choice.

This means that prior to our birth, we never were

given the options or decisions or even the rights to
determine what kind of life to live. And even if we
were, we would still find ourselves on the crossroad
making decisions whether to continue to live or not.
The creative power of consciousness opens
up the infinite possibility for actions which
Sartre calls "absolute freedom of choice".

What to do with one's life and how to do it is

now up to the for-itself.

The for-itself, who dispenses with choice,

enjoys the fullness of its freedom until
something breaches up on its individual
horizon, until the other human being
confronts me as another consciousness and
for it-self.
This means that while I - who myself
already am a for-itself - have the
exclusive proprietorship over my life and
alone have the rights to decide on what
to do with it, I cannot but acknowledge
the same fact that there are other
individualities who get to be affected by
my own decisions, too.