Philo 1 THV-3
Final Paper
The Paradox of Progress: Should Freedom be Sacrificed for a Better Life?
Submitted on:
November 18, 2024
Philosophy 1 THV-3
1
Philo 1 THV-3
Final Paper
Introduction
Freedom goes by many names. Some see it as the right to free food, shelter, and
healthcare; others see it as the right to speak and share their thoughts without repercussions; and
most see it as the ability to live without restraint. Freedom has become this complex and abstract
concept that serves as one of the key building blocks for society. Despite the various clashing
definitions of freedom, the general consensus is that freedom is something that we as humans
have the right to and to take it away without valid reason is immoral and unethical.
Considering this we have decided to pose the question "Should we deprive people of their
freedom to better their lives?" Our three main objectives in posing this question are to prove that
limiting freedoms does not better lives, to explore the implications of leadership rooted in virtue
ethics and demonstrate its benefits, and to explain why virtue ethics should guide leadership.
Based on these objectives we claim that depriving people of freedoms that do not
negatively affect others to better their lives is not morally acceptable. To delve deeper in this
claim, we will go over specifically what freedoms will be tackled. The freedoms that are a part of
the claim are freedom of speech, personal autonomy, economic freedom, freedom to bear arms,
and freedom to personal and private information. The “bettering” of lives on the other hand are
quantified by, an increase in public safety, an increase in economic growth based on the GDP,
improved law enforcement, and overall public trust. The paper will have a focus on authoritarian
regimes, namely that of Singapore and El Salvador to provide an insight and interpret the
question through a virtue ethics and utilitarian lens.
The grounds on which the claim is based are the overall value of freedom in society. With
freedom a society can see progress both through social and economic growth. Whilst removing
freedom hampers development in various ways. Removing freedom hampers economic
prosperity, by limiting entrepreneurs and halting market efficiency. It reduces social progress by
preventing the free expression of ideas through means such as censorship. It damages political
stability, creating authoritarian regimes that lack transparency and accountability. It harms the
psychological wellbeing of individuals by reducing their autonomy and ability to express
2
Philo 1 THV-3
Final Paper
themselves. This can all be attributed to the deprivation of freedom individuals experience under
leaders who disregard virtue.
These grounds are rooted in the warrant, Plato and the Stoics’ definition of eudaimonia
and virtue. First, they define eudaimonia as the greatest achievement in virtue ethics, it is a
happiness that is formed only when one lives a life of virtue. This virtue is something deeper
than the common definition of virtue, they define it as an excellent trait of character. Virtue is not
simply being kind when easy or because they view it as the only thing they can do, but they
understand possible outcomes and choose to do virtuous deeds in spite of them. Simply put in
their philosophy is that to achieve true and ultimate happiness one must live a virtuous life.
(Annas, 1993)
Backing
With the theoretical lens of eudaimonia, it is important to examine case studies of nations
and governments led with leaders that disregard the fundamental importance of virtuous
leadership. The following section details a prime example of a nation leader prioritizing a
consequentialist ideology in leadership, while looking over the virtue ethics in determining the
morality of the decision-making process.
The Implementation of National State of Exception by El Salvador’s President
The introduction of El Salvador's national state of exception in March 2022 was a
decision rooted in bringing security to a country severely suffering from extremely high crime
and homicide rates from the prominence of street gangs. The implementation of a national state
of exception deprived citizens of many different liberties, notably due process, resulting in over
80000 arrests in the period’s more than two year length (Méndez & Zulver, 2023; Human Rights
Body Urges El Salvador to End State of Emergency, 2024)
The suspension of many civil liberties of the people, opens the citizens up to vulnerable
positions by the government, in which anybody can be arrested for anything. With an emphasis
on the loss of due process within the nation’s justice system, the El salvador government justifies
these actions with the notion of fixing the country’s extremely high rate of crime.
3
Philo 1 THV-3
Final Paper
The loss of freedom of speech is a pervasive issue haunting the journalist and members of
the country’s civil society, as the government has crafted a hostile environment for those who
speak up, labeling them as “gang defenders.” The Association of Journalists of El Salvador
reports over 147 violations of press freedom in 2022 that involves the restriction of journalistic
work, access to public information, and many more (World Report | El Salvador, 2024).
With El Salvador’s state of exception lasting for more than two years at the time of
writing this paper, it is important to discuss the long-term consequences of suspending such
fundamental human rights for this long of a time. With an emphasis on the democratic process,
the suspension of these legislative and judicial processes totally immobilizes the democratic
system of checks and balances within the nation. The normalization of these emergency powers
further weakens the public trust within the government, and undermines the authority of the
judiciary.
Rebuttals
Even if reducing the people’s freedom is restricted, they will attain greater happiness as they
have an increased quality of life.
Theory
Utilitarianism
Backing
Singapore’s Exponential Growth Under an Authoritarian Regime
Although controversial for some, Singapore has proven as a country leading Asia as one
of the fastest growing economies and intellectual hubs in the world. This growth is largely
credited towards the country’s leadership and direction under Lee Kuan Yew, with the country
being infamously labelled with a government lead with an authoritarian style under his ruling.
Under this rule, Lee became known for his firm grip on power and maintenance of stability that
gave very little space for corruption, with an emphasis towards a no tolerance policy towards
crime in Singapore. Despite being criticised for his tight grip on power, the tiny country boosted
their economy under this ruling, being described as one of the highest in the world in 2013,
behind oil-rich countries (Alam, 2015).
4
Philo 1 THV-3
Final Paper
With that, the historical reference of Singapore’s economic growth puts into question
whether or not an authoritarian rule that is governed responsibly is preferable for producing
economic growth and overall happiness within the country.
The problem of defining and measuring what is “the greater good”
When arguing for “the greater good” a problem arises in its objectivity in determining
what constitutes the “greater good.” The nature of the concept of good is inherently subjective,
arguably that different individuals and groups will have their own varying interpretations. This,
overall, makes it increasingly difficult to pinpoint and establish an objective standard for
justifying the deprivation of certain freedoms for the “good” we are prioritizing.
Further, the feasibility of being able to accurately measure the benefits and total “good”
we are gaining from depriving people of such liberties is questionable. Considering the overall
uncertainty of human behavior and outcome of the future, how can we reliably predict and
quantify the long term benefits of implementing such stringent measures for “the good of all?”
Emphasizing the value of individual freedom
This part will emphasize and describe the inherent value of individual freedom and autonomy,
arguing for the idea that these are essential components for human dignity, and further
contributes to the system of check and balance with governing entities.
When discussing the deprivation of such liberties, it is important to consider the intrinsic
value of individual freedom and autonomy. Such are essential components of human dignity, as
these are vital manifestations of human worth. Restricting such fundamental rights completely
undermines the inherent worth of individuals, even if doing so is in the aims of bettering the lives
of the majority.
More concerningly, the potential of a “domino effect,” when it comes to limiting certain
freedoms, opens the door to more restrictive policies that target the fundamental rights of
individuals. If we are able to accept the deprivation of certain liberties for the greater good,
where will we know when to draw the line?
Miseusage and Abuse of Authoritarian Rules
5
Philo 1 THV-3
Final Paper
Most especially within the Philippine context, the deprivation of freedoms for “the
greater good” have had deeply troubled and bloody historical precedents. The nation’s
experience with martial law saw at least 70000 people imprisoned, 34000 tortured, and over
3200 killed according to Amnesty International (2022). All of the blood drawn during this era
was in the name of responding to the “communist threat” posed by Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP). With consequences and basic human rights that are fundamental at risk, who
are we to decide what and what not to deprive.
With that, it is important to emphasize upholding the democratic processes and respecting
the individual rights each person inherently holds. Doing so, is provenly an effective means of
achieving lasting and meaningful social change that sustains the value of each individual without
compromise. The deprivation of people’s freedoms to better their lives is inherently morally
unacceptable, even though it is argued to serve a greater good. The individual autonomy and
pursuit of social change are fundamental concepts that should be protected, as integral processes
in the name of democracy.
If a democratic society is built upon leadership with the values of virtue ethics then it is
poised for a more advantageous and ethical development. However, as tackled in this paper, the
implications of an authoritarian regime that directly contradicts virtue ethics are low trust, and
high fear leading to a society that is unable to achieve eudaimonia.
6
Philo 1 THV-3
Final Paper
References
Amnesty International. (2022, September 21). Five things to know about Martial Law in the
Philippines.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/04/five-things-to-know-about-martial-law-i
n-the-philippines/
Annas, Julia, 1993, The Morality of Happiness, New York: Oxford University Press.
Méndez, M. J., & Zulver, J. (2023, May 4). El Salvador’s “State of Exception” makes women
collateral damage. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/05/el-salvadors-state-of-exception-makes-wo
men-collateral-damage?lang=en
How Lee Kuan Yew transformed Singapore. (2024, September 10). World Economic Forum.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/03/how-lee-kuan-yew-transformed-singapore/
Human rights body urges El Salvador to end state of emergency | AP News. (2024, September 4).
AP News.
https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-nayib-bukele-human-rights-gangs-369838a40503c
8ce703ecd2bf9f3dc4b
Submitted by:
Samuel Diego A. Layug
Rian Kristian S. Mallorca
Philo THV 3
7