Freedom, for me, comes down to choice. The amounts of choices available to one at a given point in time determine how “free” one is. This notion of “choice”, I suppose, is as pertinent to one’s physicality as it is to one’s mentality.
Thus, for the man in the cage, in determining how free he is, we must determine the scope of choice he has available to him. If he has a choice to leave the cage, then - even if he decides to stay - we can only say he is free. Whether he consciously chooses to stay in the cage, or merely remains in the cage to defer his decision, then it amounts to the same thing: he is responsible for his circumstance. If the man is held in the cage against his will, then we may say he lacks freedom in this sense, as he has no choice with regards to his circumstance.
The issue of whether he is aware of the world beyond his cage does not give him a greater scope of choice in this example (he still must decide whether to stay or leave) yet if he is aware of the world beyond his cage, then his decision is more informed, and changes the nature of his choice in some regard. By being more aware of the consequences of his choice (that is, he can now leave his cage with some degree of certainty as to what he will find) he can now anticipate future choices that may result from his first choice: if he does decide to leave, for instance, he may then be aware that doing so will present him with another choice (climbing a tree or going swimming in a pond, say) in which case his initial choice, he understands, can give way to consequential choices. His initial choice, then, is based on his understanding that this first choice will give way to future choices, and his initial decision - where he is aware of the outside world - is based, over a great enough time-period, on a greater scope of choice.
So, for instance, if this man was ignorant of the outside world prior to making his choice, then he has two options:
- Stay
- Leave
However, if he is aware of the outside world and the implications this has on his future scope of choice, then he has, effectively more choices (even though the initial choice - of whether to stay or leave - is the same is if he were in a state of ignorance):
- Stay
- Leave, then climb a tree
- Leave, then swim in the pond
And so on. By being aware of the outside world (by possessing knowledge as such) his “decision tree” is greater, and is not just a series of disconnected, dichothemic “yes or no” type choices. If he is more accutely aware of his initial circumstance, then his choice is not merely “leave or stay” but conditional upon his knowledge of the outside world.
Thus the man who is aware of the outside world has a greater scope of choice overall, than the man ignorant of it. The former man, with his choices, we can say is more “free” than the ignorant man, but with that comes a greater sense of responsibility for his choice. The opportunity cost of his choice (that is, the amount of options he forgoes by making his decision) is greater, and he is more responsible for his choice than the man who was not aware of the outside world in the first place. How can the ignorant man, for instance, be held responsible for not choosing to “leave and then climb a tree” when he could have no idea that the initial choice would present him with this second choice?
An objection here could be that, really, the learned man and the ignorant man have the same scope of choice. That is, even if he doesn’t know it, the ignorant man still has the choice - if he wishes - to leave the cage and to then choose to climb a tree and he is thus as “free” as the learned man. However, I would argue that freedom is dependant on the scope of choice at a specific point in time. That is, if we were to point to the circumstances that each man found himself in initially (that is, locked in a cage) then the scope of choice available to the ignorant man is still less than that of the other man. Given his overall knowledge of his circumstance, the ignorant man has only two available choices at that point whereas the learned man has - as I outlined before - at least three. Given this, I am of the opinion that knowledge - in both the example given and in real life - can only contribute to the level of freedom one possesses. Does that mean that an ignorant person is then a slave to his circumstance?
Hmmm… tough to say because it depends on what you mean by “slavery” (god I hate semantics) but insofar as slavery is synonymous lack of choice, then yes, we can say that the ignorant man is - to a degree - a slave to his circumstance. Ignorance can be blissful though, in a sense, because, along with the lack of available choice comes the benefit of not having to make difficult choices and to avoid the worry that follows such a concern. The ignorant man has less choices to make and is less responsible for the choices he does make (lesser scope of choice, smaller opportunity cost etc.) yet this suits him - and a great many other human beings - just fine. To quote myself (in a heavily edited form to make it more relevant):
(The above text wa a response to a discussion about the US government sacrificing some civil liberties to enchance domestic security, but sort of branched off into a discussion about what freedom is really about.)
Any thoughts?