Science in Christian Perspective
.
IS THE ROAD FROM FREEDOM TO RESPONSIBILITY A ONE-WAY STREET?
Richard H. Bube
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Stanford University Stanford, California 94305
From: JASA 32 (September 1980): 129-134
[This is the last of three keynote addresses on the theme,
"Choices We Face,"
presented at the 1979 Annual Meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation at
Stanford University, Stanford, California.]
Freedom proves to be a very elusive concept. There are many different kinds of
freedom: personal freedom, political freedom, religious freedom, and economic
freedom. There is freedom from; and there is freedom to. Wars have been fought
and ringing testimonies made: "Give me liberty or give me
death." Still
misconceptions seem to multiply concerning what freedom is, how much freedom is
available, and how to maintain and preserve freedom. Here I discuss
four aspects
of freedom: (1) How is freedom related to restraints? (2) What
demands does responsibility
place upon freedom? (3) Is it possible to increase both
responsibility and freedom?
(4) Why does compulsion so often replace responsibility in
restricting freedom?
Freedom as the Absence of Restraints
The dictionary's first definition for freedom is "the condition of being
free of restraints." This general concept of freedom is
illustrated in Figure
1. Infinite freedom is achievable by reducing restraints to zero; zero freedom
is achievable by increasing restraints to infinity. To be truly and completely
free in this picture is to have no restraints; it is an anarchist's
view of freedom.
Such a view, if taken literally, appears however to violate what we
mean in everyday
life by "being free." If we were free of all restraints in
the physical
world, if there were no gravity, laws of nature etc., we would have physical
chaos in which
we could not even exist, never mind be free. Restraints make life possible. If
we were free of all restraints in the social world, if there were no
social mores,
no courtesy, no consideration for others, we would have social chaos in which
our individual freedom would disappear completely. Restraints make
life bearable.
If we were free of all restraints in the spiritual realm, if there were no God,
no Ten Commandments, no Lord and Savior, we would have spiritual chaos in which
our spiritual freedom would never exist. Restraints make life meaningful.
As long as people hold on to the concept that freedom is the absence
of all restraints-and
this is not at all an uncommon view-they strive for some kind of
idealized existence
that is incompatible with life in this real created world. If they
persist, their
final effect can be only to destroy their own freedom and ours as well.
Science and engineering teach us clearly that freedom in this real
created universe
depends not on our being rid of restraints, but on our understanding
and knowing
Figure 1. The symbolic relationship between freedom and restraint if it is assumed that freedom is the absence of restraint. Infinite freedom is achieved with zero restraint, and zero freedom is produced by infinite restraint.
what restraints there are, and creatively working within them. If I
wish to fly,
I must understand the restraints of aerodynamics and work within them, not try
to ignore them or do without them. If I wish to make a high efficiency solar
cell (and I do!), I must understand the restraints of semiconductor materials
and the properties of the solid state and he creative within them, not try to
ignore them or act as if they did not exist. Most of my failures
result from ignorance
of what the restraints are, If I wish to remain free and active, then
I must realize
the restraints that are imposed upon me; I cannot walk off the top of a
tall building,
I cannot ingest poison, nor can I lie down in front of a crocodile.
As a Christian, as well as a scientist, I see these same kinds of
restraints operating
in the interpersonal relationships of the world as well. To be free
in the vital
dynamic sense of the word in this real world means that I do not
demand the absence
of restraints on personal selfishness or greed, injustice between persons, or
social persecution. Nor do I demand the absence of restraints on
killing, hating,
stealing, committing adultery, lying, slandering or coveting. To be truly free
is to recognize the inbuilt constraints of our created situation and
our created
nature, and to live within these constraints. I am indeed always just as free
to hate as I am to walk off a tall building; the nature of reality
does not restrain
me by preventing me from exercising my choice, but I am restrained in the sense
that the consequences of my choice are sooner or later known if it violates the
nature of created reality.
It has been argued that the laws governing the physical universe are different
from "religious laws" governing interpersonal relationships because
the former are never broken whereas the latter are.1 But we must be careful what we mean
by "broken."
Just as physical laws are not broken, but still I may choose to act contrary to
them to soy own hurt, so interpersonal laws are not broken, but acting contrary
to them leads inevitably to judgment and the suffering of the consequences.
We recognize that all in all the representation of Figure I is not an adequate
one.
Tradeoffs Between Freedom and Responsibility
We turn next to a second way of looking at the question of freedom:
as a tradeoff
between freedom and responsibility as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The symbolic tradeoff between freedom arid responsibility. A transition from state A to state B automatically involves an increase in responsibility and a decrease in freedom.
Here we
appreciate that
the maximum freedom as well as the maximum responsibility is finite
for finite
creatures such as we. A transition between two states, indicated by two points
on the curve, always corresponds to either a loss of freedom and a
gain in responsibility,
or to a gain in freedom at the expense of a loss in responsibility.
The increase of contacts between members of a human society inevitably leads to
a loss of previously possible individual freedoms in order to face
new needs responsibly.
The existence of many ears on the road calls for a responsibility in driving,
which causes the freedom to drive at any desired speed or in a manner decided
upon only by the driver to be lost in order that some positive contribution may
he made to preserving lives; the lonely cowboy riding his horse
through the unexplored
and uninhabited lands of the west a hundred years ago had no need to exercise
such responsibility. The existence of many waste-disposing
individuals calls for
a responsibility in preserving the environment, which causes the
freedom to dispose
of waste in any convenient way to be curtailed in order that human beings may
breathe and live; the lonely country dweller need not be concerned
about the droppings
of his dog, but the city dweller today is often enforced by law to
carry a "pooper-scooper."
In many ways there is a sharp contrast between present-day society and earlier
days and places when there was a much lower population density; open frontiers
lay always ahead, and the ability of the natural ecology to absorb
perturbations
was sufficient to handle the problems. The shrinking of the world
demands a transformation
of individual freedoms into corporate responsibility.
The challenge of Christian responsible living is to provide the limitations on
our own freedoms so that we may better serve the rest of the world,
both our immediate
world and our extended world. The classical example of this kind of
transformation
of freedom voluntarily into responsibility is provided for the Christian by the
writings of Paul in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8. Even when every
possible case
can be made for the validity of our freedom, still we choose not to
exercise that
freedom if it will prove damaging in any way to someone else. What dues it mean
to follow Christ by choosing servant-hood, except to he willing to lay aside our
freedoms in order to live responsibly before God?
Gaining Responsibility and Freedom
There are some very special types of situations in which
it is possible to show more responsibility without losing any freedom, or even
with a gain of freedom at the same time. These marvelous situations, one might
think, should he under high demand, hot curiously such possibilities
are singularly
low in public acceptance at the present probably because of a
fundamental misunderstanding
of the nature of freedom.
This type of situation is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3. The potentialities introduced by new relationships in the tradeoff between freedom and responsibility. By entering into new relationships, a transition from state A t,, state B May invoke ail increase in responsibility without a loss in freedom and a transition from state A to state C involves an increase in both responsibility and freedom.
The symbolic curve linking
freedom and responsibility such as is shown in Figure 2 represents
the possibilities
within the context of a given set of relationships. Another set of
relationships,
however, might well be represented by another freedom/responsibility curve. In
this way there are opened possibilities for increasing responsibility without
loss of freedom, or even of increasing both responsibility and
freedom together,
by making a transformation from one set of relationships to the other.
What are some examples of such relationship-transforming potentialities? I suggest
just two that are well known: marriage and Christian conversion.
In at least the traditional Christian view of marriage 2
this relationship consists of a unity formed from the mutual lifelong
love commitment
of two individuals, who are willing to trust each other and God, and therefore
are willing to entrust themselves to one another. "Therefore shall a man
leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and they shall
become one flesh."
Certain individual freedoms are willingly surrendered but only so as to receive
the much greater freedoms of the marriage relationship. Modern efforts to make
of marriage a 50-50 partnership instead of an organic union, violate
these conditions
and minimize the opportunities to genuinely exceed the freedom/responsibility
tradeoff. Insofar as the movement toward contract marriages is a premarital
accommodation to a lack
of willingness on the part of the participants to entrust themselves wholly to
each other, it breaks down the relationship transformation that is
most fruitful
in making new potentialities possible. Concerted attempts to preserve
individual
rights and identities in marriage at the expense of organic union
also move marriage
from the marvelous institution it can he to something much less. Here
we see enacted,
"Whoever would keep his/her freedom will lose it, and whoever will give up
his/her freedom for the sake of the marriage will find it." This
is the dynamics
that govern the kind of relationship that transforms the freedom/responsibility
curve.
We are, of course, as Christians familiar with the original statement
from which
the above statement was burrowed: "He who will save his life will lose it,
but he who loses his life for My sake will save it." The biblical picture
of Christian conversion is rich with images that emphasize the increase in both
freedom and responsibility that come with Christian conversion. We
who were slaves
of sin, and hence not free at all, becomes slaves of Christ, and
hence truly free,
By Christian conversion we move deeper into the warp and woof of the nature of
the created universe, and so we move more and more within the
constraints of that
universe as new creatures, children of God, and members of the
household of faith.
Before Christian conversion we were not free to be responsible; after
conversion
we are responsible as an expression of our freedom. We understand the meaning
and the power of Jesus' words, when he said, "For this reason the Father
loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it
from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and
I have power
to take it again." (John 10:17, 18)
As long as people hold on to the concept that freedom is the absence
of all restraints,
they strive for some kind of idealized existence that is incompatible with life
in this real created world.
There are possibilities, therefore, of opening new opportunities
through new relationships
as we consider the exchange of freedom and responsibility.
Responsibility vs Compulsion
The reader may by this time be increasingly restless: all this talk of freedom
and responsibility is very well, but it doesn't characterize much of the real
world we live in. Opportunities for responsibility have been largely taken over
by the demands of compulsion.
Figure 4 expresses this dimension of our actual situation.
Figure 4. The symbolic representation of compulsion as orthogonal to
the freedom/
responsibility plane. Transitions from state A to states B and C
involve the loss
of the same amount of freedom, but the transition to state B brings a tradeoff
of freedom for responsibility due to choice, whereas the transition to state C
yields no responsibility since the transition was made by compulsion.
We can
give up freedom
in two ways: because we choose to (responsibility), or because we
have to (compulsion).
There is an axis of compulsion that runs orthogonal to both freedom
and responsibility;
we can lose our freedom and gain nothing in responsibility if our actions are
compelled by fear of punishment or loss. We must realize at once that
compulsion
is not responsibility (either unenforced or enforced); a large portion of the
world today speaks glibly of social responsibility, but what they really mean
is social compulsion. They may indicate that such compulsion is only
a temporary
necessity, on the way to true responsibility, but historical examples
of getting
past this step are hardly common.
We have for this case again some biblical analogies. When we restrict
our freedoms
solely out of fear of the law, we lose both freedom and responsibility. So Paul
speaks of the law: "Now before faith came, we were confined under the law,
kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law
was our custodian
(schoolmaster, KJV) until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But
now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; for in
Christ Jesus
you are all sons of God, through faith." (Gal. 3:23-26)
Therefore the Christian
is called to do responsibly out of love for Cod what under the law was a matter
of compulsion: by entering into the new relationship in Christ
compulsion is transformed
into responsibility. The same issues constantly arise again; every
resort to legalism
rather than to responsible discipleship is an attempt to substitute compulsion
for responsibility. Such a substitution seems quite appealing: certainly it is
both safer and easier to have a strict legal code that can be followed without
thought or choice rather than leaving individual choices to the
personal responsibility;
this is not, however, the kind of Christian maturity to which Christ has called
us. Note that this framework avoids extremes: we cannot live
responsibly without
the law, for it shows us what living responsibly means; but if we
attempt to settle
all the issues of living by construction of a legalistic code, we have
destroyed the
opportunity for responsibility.
If we examine the structure of our social life today, we quickly find that to
an extreme degree compulsion has been substituted for responsibility. The best
of motives, e.g., to aid the poor and sick, becomes the foundation
for a bureaucratic
system of compulsion that all too often fails the goal for which it
was conceived,
while at the same time taking away the incentives for any individual voluntary
choices. So we see a desire to strengthen the power to act resulting
in the transfer
of power from local to federal levels, a desire to insure industrial
safety resulting
in the sometime excesses of OSHA, a desire to give financial aid to
the poor resulting
in the welfare system, a desire to insure responsible accounting of
public funds
resulting in roadblocks of red tape that paralyze progress, a desire
for tax relief
(California's Proposition 13, for example) resulting in an effective transfer
of funds from the community to the federal government, a desire for
fair practices
in employment resulting in such a conglomeration of requirements that
unfairness
is as likely to be promoted as fairness, and a desire to eliminate
discrimination
resulting in an absolutization of those extraneous factors that perpetuate the
environment for discrimination.
The justification for this process goes something like this. (1) Here
is a genuine
human need. (2) This need is not being met by voluntary choices. (3)
People ought
to respond voluntarily to such needs. (4) People would respond voluntarily to
such needs if they were properly informed and motivated. (5)
"Education"
about the needs sometimes then leads to compulsion to fulfill them, or
frustration
with people not voluntarily doing what they ought to leads to
compulsion so that
the need may not go unattended. (6) Therefore it is right and good to
force people
to do what they ought to voluntarily but don't.
If human beings were intrinsically altruistic and unselfish, then one
could make
a case for removing compulsion in order that responsible living might be able
to express itself. One could argue that the very existence of compulsion makes
responsible living impossible. I had a discussion with distinguished faculty in
the commencement line at the time of Proposition 13 in California.
They were certain
that if real estate taxes were lowered, the outpouring of voluntary
giving would
more than make op for it to continue all worthwhile and needed services. I do
not think there is more than a token of empirical evidence to back up that hope
since then.
But we must also keep in mind the immensity of the task. I pay (by compulsion)
about 1/3 of my salary in taxes; a high degree of altruism would have
to be present
to keep me doing that if taxation stopped, and I would certainly demand a much
better accounting of how my money was being spent. 40% of my direct salary (in
a private university) is paid by taxpayers who are under compulsion to do so;
another 40% of my general support comes from these same taxpayers.
Assuming that
we believe that my type of job is worthwhile, could we rely on the
altruism, vision
and generosity of human beings to voluntarily maintain such support?
In this framework, taxation becomes a necessary evil
in a complex and sinful world. One may argue with the libertarians
that taxation
for such purposes is an improper activity of the state, and should be left to
voluntary actions of the individual citizens; but it is highly
unlikely that enough
citizens would sacrifice voluntarily to meet the need if they were not forced
to. As usual the rich would make out all right, and the poor would suffer even
more. Or one may argue with the welfare state that no responsible
human being
can stand by and watch others suffer because of people's ignorance or
indifference;
surely taxation is both necessary and an inducement to moral action by people
unlikely to take it on their own. But it seems that such a choice makes it less
and less likely that people will make any voluntary responsible
choices, for they
have so little left to make them with!
The strength of the Christian church in those situations where it is supported
by the free and voluntary gifts of its members, appears at least partially to
derive from this voluntary method of support when compared with the state churches
supported by universal taxation; these state churches all too often generate a
dead religion: a society that is Christian in name, but without the commitment
or the faith of true followers of Jesus Christ.
Rights and the Christian
Today we see more and more another phenomenon
There are some very special types of situations in which it is possible to show more responsibility' without losing any freedom, or even with a gain of freedom at the same time.
generated by this state of affairs. Sensing that their freedoms are
being stripped
by more and more compulsion, and desiring to hang onto a sense of freedom and
responsibility, people are raising an essentially legalistic outcry
to translate
freedoms into rights. The demand is made for the exchange of freedoms
that depend
on the goodhearted voluntary cooperation of all into hard legal realities that
stifle responsibility (since they no longer must be earned) and
invoke compulsion
in the name of freedom.
In such a day when "obtaining one's rights" and
"fighting for one's
rights" is viewed as the battle-cry of enlightened humanity, the Christian
faces a peculiar challenge indeed. For the Christian is, in some
sense, a person
without rights. We are called upon to follow our Lord Jesus Christ, whose whole
existence is summed up by his renunciation of the rights he had as the eternal
Son of Cod in order to become incarnate as man. Christians are indeed
Look down the lists of the countless "rights" movements and you will find very little talk of "Why not rather suffer wrong?" or "Why not rather be defrauded?"
called upon to work for the justice and fair treatment of all people, but this
is quite different from insisting on "my own rights." Paul laid it on
the line when he heard that Christians in Corinth were suing one
another in order
to get their "rights": "To have lawsuits at all with one another
is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be
defrauded?"
(I Cur. 6:7) How alien this approach is today! Look down the lists of
the countless
"rights" movements and you will find very little talk of
"Why not
rather suffer wrong?" or "Why not rather be defrauded?" There is
indeed the problem of discriminating between demanding one's rights and being
a doormat for the world, but I do not think there is much question about which
direction we err in most of the time.
Conclusions
In this fairly general treatment of the subject of freedom and responsibility,
we have tried to make the following points.
1. Freedom does not arise from the absence of all restraints, but by
recognizing
the restraints that are present and acting creatively within these
restraints.
2. To live responsibly in a world with increasing limitations and interactions,
voluntary restrictions on freedom are necessary.
3. There are possibilities for entering into new types of
relationships in which
both freedom and responsibility can he expanded. Marriage,
friendship, and Christian
conversion are examples of such possibilities.
4. When the solutions to needs are not taken voluntarily by responsible choices
by which one limits one's own freedom, concern for the welfare of all leads in
a complex and sinful world to the need for compulsion. There are always great
dangers in this direction, since compulsion removes freedom without increasing
responsibility. Unfortunately the removal of compulsion, on the premise that we
live in a world of intrinsically altruistic and self-giving individuals, leads
to just as destructive a corruption of human welfare, as does the
overdevelopment
of compulsion on the premise that individuals most be programmed by a
super-intelligence
for their own welfare.
Perhaps seeing these distinctions and problems a little more clearly provides
a first step for the Christian in seeking applications and significance in his
or her own life.3 At the very least, the value of the opportunity to express
responsibility should he upheld against a fairly universal tendency
to use compulsion
in any and every avenue of social interaction.
©1980
REFERENCES
1See Dan McLachlan, Letters, Physics Today, January (1979); and
Richard H. Bube,
Letters, Physics Today, April (1979)
2See Richard H. Bube, "Human Sexuality," Journal ASA June
and September (1979)
3Sometimes this can he done at a very elementary level; the challenge
to the Christian
of properly regarding his/her "rights" can he faced when someone cuts
ahead of you in a waiting line or when someone starts from a Stop sign when it
was your turn.