Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Freedom To Choose Freedom Of Choice - 1,711 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

The topic of this paper is to discuss what freedom is and if we as humans possess it. Freedom is defined by Webster's Dictionary as the exemption from power or control of another, or exemption from necessity, in choice and action, known generally as free will. However, this does not cover the full implications of pure and absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is one such that a person not only understands that there are no restrictions on his actions, but also that his actions are guided by his own personal choice. Along with this freedom however, is the direct responsibility of the person's actions. Many philosophers have written about freedom including Plato, Aristotle and Jean-Paul Sartre.

They each have different ideas on freedom and of the three, Sartre has the most critical view of the accepted definition of freedom. Aristotle's Nicomachea n Ethics in the fourth and fifth books presents the basis of our actions as somewhat of a contradiction. He states that there is an unconditional and real good that every person should seek, but individually, each person wishes for what they see as good. Aristotle claims that only the "excellent person" is capable of deciphering what is the true good and the base person, while still acting on the behalf of apparent good, will not necessarily choose the real good. (Aristotle, 278) Here is the mistake that he makes. He continues to say that our actions express decisions and will be voluntary. At no point does he successfully argue that our decisions are voluntary, but instead approaches a conclusion that our actions are based on our natural and fundamental desire to do good.

In this way, freedom is very limited to always acting on the behalf of the apparent good, even if it is not a true good. It follows then that we are not free to choose the absolute good, since we do choose the apparent good, and know no other good to choose. Aristotle leaves this problem and bases the rest of the book on the opposite conclusion that we act voluntarily, and that virtue and vice are both voluntary. He rightly says that this is how the governing bodies of the nations act, and I believe it to be correct, but Aristotle weakly assumes that his argument agrees with this. He is right also in saying that people are responsible for their state of character, and thus their actions (Aristotle, 280) but he never defends it, assuming it to be a given truth.

Looking back to Plato's Republic, Socrates concerns himself with trying to learn how to live, and with trying to identify the ways for happiness. He assumes that if a person knows enough and thinks logically about something, he will automatically decide to do what is concluded to be right. He makes the same mistake as Aristotle, but does not even pretend that freedom of choice exists and believes that there is one correct way to do things and that if adequately argued, any person would do the right thing. He firmly believes that education and logic pave the path to good morals and a happy life.

Sartre on the other hand sees people as wholly and purely free, unrestrained by convention or even consequences (not avoiding consequences, merely not letting bad consequences take control of the situation). In his play No Exit, the three prisoners of hell all accept their fate knowing that they each deserve it. At first, none even seem too distraught over the result of their lives. In The Flies, Sartre gives Orestes the knowledge of his own freedom and Orestes uses it, choosing to challenge Zeus and reject the necessity of the doom of the city. Instead of avoiding the city like most travelers, he embraces it, wishing to feel their misery and to end it. Had he not understood his own freedom, he would have been unsuccessful in his mission.

The overwhelming power of Zeus would have caused him to cower as did Electra, his sister. Sartre writes a portrayal of humans that is completely lacking any natural outside authority, and painting the image that a person is responsible for every action he takes, knowing every consequence. His argument against Aristotle would be that not everyone always chooses good, so not everyone is going to choose good over evil even if they know they are choosing the evil. An example of this is in his play The Respectful Prostitute. The end of the play sees Lizzie, the prostitute deciding to let Fred the future senator get away with killing an innocent man (Sartre, 281). There is no just reason for her to let him get away with the act, but decides to accept his bribery of wealth.

She chose to be self-centered and not worry about the actual truth, focusing instead on her own desires. While Sartre doesn't praise the choices of his characters, with the exception of Orestes in The Flies, he sees nothing wrong with a person understanding the consequences and acting in whatever way they see fit wit the knowledge of consequences. Conversely, Aristotle and Plato both would criticize Sartre for giving too much credit to his characters. For instance Electra, in The Flies, did know the whole truth about Zeus and her parents but chose to continue obeying Zeus and living in her guilt that was borne from her mother and stepfather's sin. Socrates would say that Electra was not well enough trained to be able to accept the full burden of her actions, and instead chose to give up her freedom of choice for the ability to not be blamed for the disruption of the deaths of the king and queen.

Socrates would also say that Orestes was not acting on intent to display or practice his freedom, but rather acting out of his knowledge of what is correct. Aristotle would say that Orestes is an excellent person because he understands the real and absolute truth and is acting on behalf of the unconditional good, despite what most including Electra see as the apparent truth. Likewise in The Respectful Prostitute, Aristotle would argue that Lizzie did see the real good, but it was hidden from her at the end by Fred, who was also acting on behalf of his perceived good by trying to continue his family's influence on the city while cleaning up the town a bit (Sartre 280). There are two trains of thought. The first is that people are only as free as they think they are.

In Socrates' case, there is an understanding in all people that freedom to choose is limited to choosing between right and wrong, with those lines clearly drawn. He further believes that choosing the right is very closely related to the amount of education a person has. As for Aristotle, there is a freedom to do whatever one wants, but is limited to doing what one thinks is good. A desire to act on apparent good guides every person's actions, and will not be disregarded. That perception is influenced positively by achieving excellence from knowledge, and is influenced negatively by deception.

That deception can especially be seen as the prospect of personal pleasure, of want for lack of personal pain. With either good or bad pressures, a person's freedom is limited to the extent of the person's intellect and influences. The other way of thinking is that people are unconditionally free and are held responsible for their actions regardless of their view or acquisition of knowledge. Aristotle recognizes that it is in this way that society deals with dangerous or unproductive people, but Sartre has a much more thorough argument. Sartre's in-depth criticism of the first school of thought exemplifies this idea. He argues through playwriting that if we just passively accept the authority forced upon us, it could lead to great unending suffering, as did his story of Argos after Agamemnon's death.

Of the two ways of thinking, the latter more accurately defines desirable thought processes, and would lead to a much more fulfilling life. It allows an individual to see into the heart of any given institution and judge personally whether that institution is acceptable. The only problem with distancing Sartre's thinking from Aristotle's is that each instance of a good use of freedom as a basis of action could be defined by Aristotle as a good example of excellence, in that the person had a knowledge of the real good and used it to overcome others' incorrect perception of good. This dilemma is nothing that would subtract from the strength of either side. The main difference is that Sartre would not even try to establish a set guidelines for government or social structure, but instead would encourage people to work toward finding a system that they are pleased with and are tolerant of. Since he was writing during the end of the second world war, he had a very specific agenda within this suggestion.

He wanted to make the French peoples feel that they should rise up against the invading Germans, and take back their society. The ideal behind his motivation was to return to the supposed acceptable and beneficial French government. Thinkers such as Aristotle would see this goal as a reasonable one, not to regain French independence and personal freedom, but to be able to return to the structured and carefully planned society that molds good citizens. Their focus again would be more to the concept of successful unquestioning citizens that further the goal of a well-structured secure environment. The questions at the beginning are therefore more complicated than just looking to philosophy for clear answers.

As much as the idea of a secure, definitely correct, mold of a society attracts me, there is something missing. Freedom to choose a different life would not be possible or even existent. Sartre recognized this and sought to allow a possibility for questioning the system that a person lives in, and encouraged that if a person felt that something better existed, they should strive to achieve that something. That ability to question and seek out a lifestyle opposed to the one in place is the whole basis for the writings of Sartre, and understanding this is a necessity to be truly free. Bibliography:


Free research essays on topics related to: apparent good, freedom to choose, aristotle, freedom of choice, sartre

Research essay sample on Freedom To Choose Freedom Of Choice

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com