Philosophy Now Forum

Reith Lecture: Freedom from Fear [or oppression]
The talk on this subject was largely about the Ukraine war, rather than about ethical values. In fact Fear is not an ethical value, but a necessary emotion in face of danger. As with love and hate, something very desirable as in our loving what is ‘good’. An excess of fear is pathological or indeed a symptom of a coinstant danger.
Rather than fear, the term used would better be Oppression a word that implies the presence of Tyranny. Although a tyrant may think he is merely keeping order for the sake of a stable society, which is a minimalist ethic. The seeming opposite of Oppression is freedom from oppression. But a simple absence of a perceived evil is not a particular good. It is the positive values that enter at that point. Are we free for the sake of self-indulgence or free for the sake of social responsibility or altruism. Tyranny is about the ego and duty. The ego and freedom is about the individual autonomous indulgence. Freedom and responsibility or duty is about personal and intersocial and state altruism. Altruism is not a love-in.

Back where I used ta live - it was paradise then, still is now, but no longer for me (lucky me!) - I remember seeing bikes, hundreds upon hundreds of them, parked in neat rows, in lots, what passed as lots anyway. I wonder if, after 30 odd years, if they're still the same ... hundreds upon hundreds of bikes, in lots, what passed as lots anyway.

Now, bikes ... thousands upon thousand, in lots, what's passed off as lots anyway ... bikes of all shapes 'n' sizes ... red, green, black, aaah black ... small, medium, big, Texas big, and children in rags, brown, dusty, rags, eyes, they are a twinkling. Deus Magnus Est.

Terror always spoils the taste of life.

RWstanding, I hope you found the two previous replies suitably edifying.

I'm not familiar with the particular Reith lecture, so I can't comment on its arguments. But I agree with you that the opposite of oppression, ethically speaking, has to be defined in terms more positive and informative than merely "absence of oppression". Without developing arguments in detail (which would require a PhD thesis!), I would suggest at least these three areas for exploration:

(1) the English common law tradition, with its origins in the Magna Carta, which gave the modern world the concept of "equality before the law". Given a perceived oppression, is there the avenue for redress?

(2) the Utilitarian tradition, which generally presupposes that individual freedom is by default absolute, but certain limits on individual freedom - including and perhaps especially the freedoms of the most powerful and wealthy - must be accepted if we are all to enjoy the maximum possible distribution of freedom;

(3) the Nazarite ethic: do as you would be done by, treat others as you would have them treat you (if you were in their position).

Of course there are those, principally the religious believers, who would wish to complicate the issue by invoking the moral imperative (which can be used to justify any ethic you please) - and according to which, after divine judgement, we may burn forever, or enjoy the favours of 72 virgins, or some such superstitious nonsense.