Morality of enforcing 'freedoms'

By Rebecca Fox-Bivona

When considering whether human freedom is a universal or simply American value, I am left wondering about whether or not all humans really value freedom at all.

I would hope that all humans value freedom, but then again, how can one define a word as abstract and encompassing as freedom anyway?

To some, it simply means the ability to move freely, to be your own master. Others define freedom as the ability to vote, and maybe the ability to obtain good health care or get an education.

The Western understanding of freedom is drastically different from any other culture's idea of freedom due to the democratic development of our society.

Simple freedoms such as owning a car and a house and the leisurely ability to speak out against popular beliefs are freedoms many of us forget that we even have in this country.

James Rachel, a former professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, discusses cultural relativism and its implications in his book, "The Elements of Moral Philosophy."

Cultural relativism recognizes that moral codes vary from society to society, "challenging us and our beliefs in the objectivity surrounded by our supposed universal moral truth," Rachel wrote.

Essentially, there are no absolute moral truths; all truths are relative to a particular culture. The idea of freedom can be applied to this definition of cultural relativism.

I previously stated that people have various beliefs about what freedom stands for, not simply Americans.

The freedoms that people feel they ought to have are usually freedoms they are not granted. For many people living under tyrannical rulers, these can be as fundamental as basic human rights, such as shelter, food and water.

To some, having freedom may entail only the most basic elements of human existence.

President Bush addressed the ideas of freedom and liberty in his second Inaugural Address, a short four months after the Sept. 11 attacks and only a little over one year prior to going to war with Iraq.

The president has stated that his intentions for going into Iraq were not merely for the War on Terror, but also to free the people of Iraq from their tyrannical dictator, Saddam Hussein.

Imposing this definition of freedom on the people of Iraq was a decision that the president decided to make, regardless of how many times he was warned not to invade Iraq.

Was this decision morally right?

While we cannot judge if it was right or wrong, we can assess whether or not it is morally justified to impose one's beliefs on an entire nation which is entirely culturally different from the United States.

According to cultural relativists, it is absolutely morally wrong to force your beliefs onto another who is culturally different.

To do so would be disrespectful of that culture, for you are assuming that their culture is wrong, the way they do things is wrong and that your way is better.

While it seems that Bush had good intentions for releasing the people of Iraq from a truly tyrannical ruler, the way he went about achieving this -- by imposing democratic rule onto the people of Iraq -- was wrong.

It made the situation appear to the world that the Iraqis couldn't handle something on their own and that they needed our help.

Whether or not human freedom is a universal value or not will remain a subjective decision, like every ethical question. But to impose one's ethical opinions on another person, let alone an entire nation, seems to be crossing the moral line.

Understanding the idea of cultural relativism allows a person to thoughtfully assess a culture they may be quick to judge.

Maybe we will think twice next time we accuse a nation of being out of control based on our determination that their system of government is wrong. But then again, maybe not.

Rebecca Fox-Bivona is a sophomore political science and sociology double major.