Where the World’s Definition of Freedom Leads

Whenever someone asks, “why not?” Usually, it seems the right question has been asked, and it’s understood to mean there is not a sufficient reason to think contrary to what someone has said. It is dismissive framing, suggesting either/both ignoratio elenchi or intentional rhetoric to discredit the contrary without engaging counterarguments. This undermines credibility in balanced discourse, prioritizing persuasion over accuracy. This is not unlike the first sin tantamount to: "He said..." which is honest and responsible for the most part, and it is replied to with "but why not? after all, this is really what God is about..." This is similar to the way the world defines freedom or addresses any significant issue regulated by religion, i.e., an undiscerning, uninvestigating, daft, and disinterested Occam's razor interested in mere perpetual apathy via vincible and therefore culpable ignorance. This "ignorance is bliss and I unilaterally decide to strawman any argument that may offer imposition upon my perspective" approach is a great way to find oneself clearly and tragically full of guilt on the day of judgement. At the limit/in its logical conclusions, the world’s definition of freedom proves to be inadequate and dangerous. The world would define freedom as the ability to act without hindrance, not just in the physical, but also without valid limitations imposed by religion, morals, and even good logic, dismissing the real answer to "why not?". Where this leads, especially in the context of more than one person, is nowhere good. In such considerations, what morality is left to the ill-formed conscience is the short-term consequences, which only affect that insight. However, there’s a lot more to an act in terms of morality than just whether it hurts someone in the short term or whether the intentions were good ("meh I tried") to define freedom in this way is to assert that life is best without rules which is very convenient until it hurts oneself and it never stops because everyone has opted for convenience, truly caring about one's pain is a burden, and to assert they should is always interpreted as an imposition. In such cases government is a limiting factor, no longer operating with a well-formed conscience. Rather, it is much worse; humanity is no longer governed by its best possible outcome by its worst possible outcome. The individual who acts upon this definition of freedom will undoubtedly drive the attributes of shame, regret, and above all, emptiness.

First, let us discuss the outcome of shame. The hiding of Adam and Eve really speaks volumes to this point. Guilt is one thing; one knows what they did and that it was a poor choice, but shame is different. Shame is an internalization of guilt, one that says not only was that act wrong, but I am wrong and therefore unlovable. The difficulty in guarding against shame is that one cannot be honest, have a well-formed conscience, and deny guilt. Thus, eliminates a robust psychological distinction between acts and persons. How one succeeds, again often with difficulty, is by accepting that since the conclusion was wrong, then the logic that produced it is false or faulty. If we equivocate this with our hurts, we can find ourselves stuck equivocating ourselves/our dignity and feel the need to defend the sin even if we know it is wrong. The truth is we don't have to defend sin, but our dignity in its way is found in the fact that we are simply broken in need of healing, growth, and perfection. Thus, it is understandable though not excusable necessarily, that we sin(ned). We must evaluate our sins or supposed sins to analyze how they came to be tempting, what philosophies we used to justify them, and what hurts are contributing. Naturally, we grow by accepting our tendency to error as inevitable, avoiding situations we can in which temptations come, (in deep psychological fashion) refute the philosophies that we use to justify our sinning in the moment and even after the fact, and then seek healing via God's love and others. However, the culture's definition of freedom does not provide this nuance, so it moves us in the direction of sociopathology, so either we are unphased or unbelieving in the consequences of our actions long term as well as short, or we tend to feel our worth is void with no nuance to stand on. This can be expressed in short, in saying "everything permitted, nothing forgiven", in contrast to objective morality and faith, which suggests "everything forgiven, good actions expected, and evil actions prohibited".

Second, we consider the production of either regret (healthy for a relativist) or again that sociopathic sort of calm in response that breaks down the conscience every time it is chosen. If one removes the idea of "being made for good" or "the freedom corresponds to good things and not evil thing", then inevitably, in the context of broken nature, one will find (likely with unfortunately great haste) exactly why what the culture lauds particularly with respect to sexuality and isolating "independence" is not what one wanted. However, since the culture is tone deaf to criticism or truth, we are abandoned in following those recommendations, thus producing regret, dishonesty with one's emotions, and/or a bitter isolation.  Thus, following the culture is often inherently regrettable in where it takes us and what it invites us to do.

Third, freedom "run amok" produces emptiness. We are ordered towards relationship, wherein intimacy, peace, and communion dwell in the same reality. A definition of freedom that cares nothing of happiness, how it is attained, how it is kept/nurtured, and the difficulty a robust answer to these questions entails, empties man of the very thing that tempts Him to accept the "convenient" definition of freedom, happiness of the quick and easy variety. Comfort opposes happiness in every unsuperficial capacity.[1] Enjoyment has no objective moorings, meaning is devalued, and no satisfaction can be real, lasting, or unconditional.[2] The relational aspects of these also cannot be dismissed. [3]

In conclusion, I would never suggest hastily swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme, only to invert the problems. Instead, I’d encourage one to consider that simplicity isn’t about stripping meaning away, but rather that good definitions rest on the truth, which, while simple, still carries nuance. Many "armchair philosophers" often neglect to examine all aspects thoroughly, focusing on what something initially seems to be rather than what it truly is. Given this, it’s no surprise that mainstream culture’s approach to ethics is often "why bother?" Its view on sin is "why not?" and its perspective on even the most obvious sins becomes "what forgiveness should there be?" These questions are ultimately answered not by persuasion, and not completely by mere reason, but by Jesus and the Church. Interestingly, one could argue that atheists can be moral if they adopt Christian ethics while discarding only the parts they disagree with. In any case, when it comes to ethics, be not surprised that common definitions of the foundational aspects of our approach don't prove to be worthwhile.

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

1. Carter Carruthers, "Happiness from Virtue or Indulgence? Part 1", Vivat Agnus Dei, August 7, 2022. vs. Carter Carruthers, "Chronic Pursuit of Instant Gratification", Vivat Agnus Dei, November 24, 2024.
2. "What is Happiness?" Future VAD Post
3. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et spes (7 December 1965), §24.3.; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter on Jesus Christ the Redeemer of Man Redemptor hominis (4 March 1979), §10.

See also Carter Carruthers, "Spiral of Sin", Vivat Agnus Dei, February 25, 2024.