It is a mistake to think that the absence of freedom, in the traditional sense, destroys the responsibility of ethical life. To illustrate this truth, it is important to establish the following principle: The freer a man is, the more he is responsible for his acts. And since no man is fully conscious, he cannot be free.
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) denies that man is entirely free in some of his acts, for freedom is identical to conscience, and, as no man is fully conscious, no man can be fully free. Only the Creator is fully conscious, and therefore totally free. In the Creator’s essence, there is no vestige of causality, in the sense of being caused; any other being is subject to causality and therefore is not free. Since the essence of man is divine, in essence, man is free; but as the existence of man, in his individuality as a phenomenon, is not identical to the Creator, but inferior, it is logical that, as an existential individual, man is not free. However, he is identical to the essential substance. The nature of the Creator who dwells in man is free - whereas the nature of the world which dwells in man is not free. The divine element in man is determinant but not determinate - whereas the mundane element in man is determinate and not determinant. The Creator, being the cause, determines - the effect, which is the creature, is determined. 1
So that man, free by his divine essence, is not free by his human existence. There is in man a mixture of active and passive, positive and negative, free and non-free: limited freedom, and therefore a limited liability, partial, fragmented, imperfect.
From this limited responsibility, it follows that man can neither identify himself nor separate himself from the Creator.
If in a certain way, the degree of freedom of any creature is limited, it follows that it can never overcome its divine cause, which will be eternally within reach and within the context of the jurisdiction of who created it. The conscious creature is free, no matter how much it revolts and no matter how responsible it is for all its acts, but never and in any case becomes free. If there were total freedom on the part of some creature, the Creator would have lost its jurisdiction over that portion of its universe, and divine sovereignty would cease to be absolute and integral.
Hence, it is strictly logical to assert man's moral responsibility, although it is not admitted that he is free. Ethical responsibility does not require this absolute responsibility; on the contrary, absolute freedom is incompatible with the ethical order. Only where there is partial freedom can there be an ethical order. The Creator is not an ethical being because the Creator is free.
Ethics does not exist in the world of complete absence nor in the complete presence of freedom - neither in the dark world of total unconsciousness nor in the enlightened world of total sapience.
Ethics can only exist in a world where both the absence or presence of freedom is incomplete, that is, in the shadowy world of the semi-consciousness.
_____________
1)- If something is determined, it is because it has been imposed on it an end, a term, finished, and therefore any autonomy or freedom is restricted. In turn, when something is determinant, it is because it has the power to end, which holds the power of choice, of a beginning and an end and that determining factor is free, Divine.
No comments:
Post a Comment