Laziness.

That pretty much sums up today. And I don't feel up to writing a post right now, so here is a little essay I wrote on whether Liberty was worth dying for or not--don't expect much. It was  awhile back and I had had almost no real writing instruction at that point...

       A common definition of liberty is the ability of individuals to have agency, or the ability to control their own actions. So when asked whether the defense of liberty is worth risking one’s life for, one should consider these questions: is the liberty being taken justly? To what degree is my (or anyone who I am concerned with) liberty being taken? And does the potential good outweigh possible death? If one was to risk one’s life for a justly forbidden cookie, would the cookie be worth one’s life? Obviously not. But on the other hand, if one was a slave who was treated cruelly by his master, and saw his wife and children also being beaten unjustly; would it worth risking one’s life for the God-given right of social freedom? That seems more reasonable. The first is unreasonable for three reasons: the liberty that is taken away is done so justly. The degree of liberty that is taken away is very small. Lastly, the potential good does not outweigh the evil. The second is reasonable because every point in the first example is reversed.
 
       Liberty can be taken away either justly or unjustly. Liberty is taken away justly if the person or
persons who take it are the appointed dealers of justice; appointed either by God or by people e.g. parents (over children), and governors (over citizens). Also, in order for the loss of a liberty to just, the liberty that is in question must be within the jurisdiction of the appointed authority. The government has the authority to make civil laws, but not ones pertaining to religion. Such takings away are necessary because human nature is inclined towards both the good, and the evil. If humans were inclined only towards good, then there would be no just deprivation of liberty.

       The degree to which liberty is deprived can vary immensely. Not being able to eat a cookie is not a very great deprivation of liberty. But the taking away of every opportunity to determine one’s own actions is a titanic loss of liberty. There is so great a gap between these two examples that it does not take much reasoning to see the how much the degree of the loss of liberty can vary.

      When one asks one’s self whether the potential good outweighs possible death, there are two
questions to consider. What is the potential good? And what is my life worth in regards to that certain deprivation of liberty? The potential good of a cookie is small compared to the loss of a life in which the only loss of liberty is not being able to eat a cookie. But risking one’s life for the potential good of social or moral liberty is definitely worth it. The potential good of social or moral freedom is huge, because one’s life is made worthless when one is reduced do the state of an animal (or slave), or when the state forces one to go against ones moral principles, making one’s life a contradiction.

     So is it worth risking one’s life for liberty? That depends on how the three questions are
answered. If the liberty that is being taken away is being done so unjustly, and to a large degree, and also the potential good outweighs death, then the answer is yes. But on the other hand, if any of the three questions prove to be false, then the answer is no. It follows then, that answer to the question: is liberty worth risking one’s life for? Is: it depends.

I know its not all that great. Whatever. It was an SAT topic essay, so it automatically is not allowed to be great.

Signing off now,

Thomas