Interdisciplinary Studies on the Human Condition
Karl Popper evaluates the paradox of freedom that the Psychology Dictionary defines as „a basic paradox which grows under presumptions of determinism in human behavior: mainly, that even though particular behaviors can be credited to particular antecedent inflicts, human beings almost universally experience a feeling of being free to perform or abstain from performing any chosen actions at the place of action, hard determinism resolves this paradox by mandating that the feeling of free choice is illusory, whereas soft determinism postulates that such a feeling isn’t actually incompatible with causal depictions.” The conclusion showcased by the article, in this perspective, determines as Karl Popper says, that given no limits in the circumstances of both concepts they will begin to self-negate. To better understand the limits that act as a significant factor in the decision of what to do with those who might use their power to express unethical concerns and allegations, we can examine the social contract of Hobbes. The idea is that a sovereign should have the absolute power given that the human experience without the understanding of right and wrong does not have virtues. According to Hobbes, people are free to understand and behave however they please on matters that are not discussed by the absolute ruler. What is relevant for the topic of cancel culture is that what is not fundamentally forbidden by law remains up to the individual, giving him free will. However, what is legal is not always rational or ethical. Thus, cancel culture comes as a punishment created by the people. If certain criteria are not established to distinguish right from wrong, there is a risk that society will become extremist and freedom of expression will be suppressed. Jean-Paul Sartre believes that man is capable of bringing destruction and suffering. He finds a paradox within the human being and frees man from the idea that he has the liberty to act; rather, human motives are based on an act of negation. Considering that we have a subjective viewpoint and make decisions based on that understanding, we develop an ontological freedom that leads to a moral obligation regarding individual and collective situations.
36
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting