The Burden of Human Freedom

2097 Words9 Pages
The Burden of Human Freedom Human freedom is our ability to do what we want to do. Being able to make choices, with absolute indifference without any external effect on it. But is it a burden? In my paper, I disagree with the idea presented by the Cardinal, who suggests that human beings are not capable of handling the burden of free will. Free will is a big responsibility, and the cardinal's argument justifies the fact on why man should not be privileged with this. His totalitarian view is simply, as long as he can provide security and stability, a human doesn't require free will. All they are expected to do is follow the guidelines provided by the authority figure. In this case, the cardinal. Whereas another believer Kant, strongly believes that human beings are ought to be free, and one must do anything to make his own decisions. For that is the only way one shall gain enlightenment. Using one's own reason would free an individual from self imposed immaturity. Thus, by making their decision and not following the guidance of any form of authority would bring about the true moral character and dignity. In my following paper, I will start off by giving a broad description of the Cardinal's view on human freedom and as to why it is viewed upon as a burden. His encounter with Christ, and the reasons he believe as to why Christ should've accepted the three temptations offered by Satan. My next focus will be to provide a counter argument through the views of Kant regarding human freedom. I will be briefly discussing about Kant's view based on enlightenment. Basically, why is one ought to follow the self made decisions, rather than having someone else make the decision for them. And last but not the least, as my defense, I will be talking about why the Cardinal is wrong in quite a few aspects and why humans are ought to be free. In the “Grand

More about The Burden of Human Freedom

Open Document