Peter Espeut

The cry 'Freedom' is a Jamaican mantra, and last week I asked whether human beings should be 'free' to do what they wish in law, no matter the consequences; I asked whether 'freedom' is an absolute right, and if it is ever justified to constrain the freedom of others, and if so, under what circumstances.

I ask these questions because some people are calling for freedom to do things that others consider immoral. Some argue that since homosexuality is against Christian morality, it should remain illegal, while others argue that persons who are not Christians, or who have different inter-pretations of Scripture, should be free to perform homosexual acts without breaking the law.

Some people believe that gambling is immoral and should be illegal, while others argue that people should be free to gamble and take risks if they wish; after all, it is their money. Some people believe that ganja and cocaine are dangerous to human health, and therefore their use should be illegal to protect people from themselves, while others argue that people should be free to perform actions even if they damage their own health in the process. Some people who call themselves "developers" believe they should be free to chop down anything, dig down anywhere, and build anything anywhere they want, while others want environmental considerations to be brought into play.

Protection

Some people call for laws to protect innocent human life (like the unborn child) while others believe that women should be free to abort foetuses in their wombs should they find them inconvenient. And so one side calls for morality, while the other side calls for freedom. These are complex issues, and affect public policy. Several of them are presently before Parliament. How do we negotiate through this moral minefield?

The position that there should be no law (no constraint upon human freedom) may easily be rejected. Some laws are necessary simply for order: everyone should drive on the left hand side of the road to minimise collisions. Some laws are necessary for public safety: building codes, speed limits, crash helmets. Some laws are necessary to protect us from the craven behaviour of others: e.g. violence and robbery. If there was no law, some would grab all they could, and the Law of the Jungle would prevail: the survival of the strongest and most powerful. Law is necessary to protect the weak from the excesses of the strong. Our behaviour must be constrained to protect us from damaging others, even when it is personally inconvenient.

There is no escaping the fact that laws are based on moral values. The principle of equality before the law is based on the intrinsic value of every human being. Social inequality begins when the lives of some are valued more than the lives of others. This often begins close to home, where we believe that goodness and justice are what is good and right for us, without considering what is good and right for others.

Value

Fundamentally, murder is wrong because the murderer values his life more than the life of another. Once we admit that human life begins at conception, then abortion is nothing less than valuing the convenience of the mother more than the life of the foetus. And if we establish the precedent that life only has value when it is convenient and wanted, then old, sick and retarded people better watch their backs! We must be logically consistent in applying values we hold dear.

Seemingly private decisions can have very public consequences. Decisions to drive fast or to smoke or to have sexual intercourse have implications for the public purse. The government is expected to provide health care for smokers and accident victims, and to build schools for children born to irresponsible parents, and to arrange an economy which will provide good jobs for them all. Surely freedom means that we must be prepared to face the consequences of our free choices ourselves. And surely when the public purse is involved, then it is no longer just a private matter?

Freedom is not an absolute right. It is justified to constrain the freedom of others for the public good. What we must do is debate the issues so that we enact good laws; and we must look at our own behaviour to see how just it is.