3. THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF HUMAN DIGNITY, ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES, AND THE
3.4. HUMAN DIGNITY AS A CONCEPT IN THE AFRICAN DEBATE
3.5.2. HUMAN DIGNITY AS FREEDOM
clearly in the public arena is the claim of one’s rights.630 One of the predominant set back of the concept of human dignity as rights is that there is too much emphasis on one’s rights, rather than on one’s duties. In this case, we refer to the duties of primary care givers and mothers of children with disabilities. The understanding is that mothers or families have the primary duty towards their children with disabilities. There is an understanding that some might have been evading their duties as parents hence risking the lives of children with disabilities. From the discussion above, human dignity as rights may remain as an ideological phenomenon which may have limited impact on people in society. The term “ideologies” in this regard implies a system of thought that claims to be true theoretically.631 It involves modes of thinking and acting, systems of values, symbolic codes that give groups structural unity.632 The present research firmly attributes the current human malaise to the lack of the implementation of the rights of children with disabilities hence they remain at the level of theory and not practice and at the expense of the inherent human dignity.
someone may not, in some circumstance, accept responsibility.636 The person would then refuse human relationships as means to forgo responsibility. Anything that comes with conditions attached has no space. Therefore, a person who assumes this negative view will isolate himself or herself from the demands of relationships, other beings, the laws that govern human life and will embrace a unique lifestyle that befits only his or her choices.
Reaching such a state of understanding freedom would imply someone who is living a life of total freedom.637 Some scholars would consider this state of life as a dignified life.638 Such a notion brings about an understanding that someone may or may not be bothered by any internal or external demands of life. The person becomes the master of his or her own life.
To this effect, the person may or may not have the potential to act in a way he or she likes.
In circumstances of this nature, a person may possess the power to execute some plan of action that befits his or her choices with or without internal or external interference.
Positive freedom is directly linked to what other scholars have called “Social Freedom”.639 According to Oppenheim, freedom designates empirically specifiable states of affairs accepted by anyone, regardless of his normative views on liberty.640 It implies that, within the reality of personal liberty to do what someone deems best, the person is still obliged to consider relational realities of life for the sake of peace and order.641 It also means that the person is free to do whatever he or she wants as long as it does not counteract or impede another person’s choices.642 The act is done freely in as much as one respects the relational interactions that would provoke and become the source of conflict. In this sense, we acknowledge the liberty of a person and the limitations that are associated with it. Someone is positively free, in-so-far as he or she is in possession of the self and honours the relationships within his or her surroundings. Karl Rahner stated that human freedom is neither merely negative and relative nor fully positive and absolute.643 To some extent, any person has, in a limited way, some dominion over himself or herself but, all-in-all, if he or she lives in society, sometimes someone may dependant on other beings to exercise his or
636 Younkins, E.W., (2000), A Review of Chris Matthew Sciabarra’s Total Freedom: Towards a Dialectical Libertarianism, in a Journal on Rebirth of Reason: Capturing the Spirit, in http://www.rebirthofreason.com/articles/Younkins/A-Review-of-Chris-Matthew-Sciabarras-Total-Freedom- Toward-a-Dialectical-Libertarianism, Pennsylvania: State University Press, Posted on 12/14, 6:57 am.
637 Ibid.
638 Ibid.
639 Oppenheim, F.E., (1972), Freedom in David L. Sills, (Ed), International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, New York: The Macmillan Company & The Free Press, Vol. 5, 554-555.
640 Ibid.
641 Ibid.
642 Ibid.
643 Rahner, K., (Ed), (1975), Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi, London: Burns &
Oates, 534-535.
her faculties of life.644 As human beings, we ought to acknowledge the norms of society to which allegiance is paid. The idea behind positive freedom is to maintain and foster peace and order in the world. Only when every citizen of the earthly kingdom comes to acknowledge the above understanding, human dignity as freedom will have full meaning and be actualized in society.
3.5.2.1. POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT
From the debate above, the research discovered that the term freedom, or the concept of freedom as Karl Rahner had put it, is an analogous one, giving the impression and reality that each person has the liberty to interpret it subjectively.645 The idea brings us to the fact that, though everyone would prefer to be free, the consensus on the definition itself is almost unsustainable. This possibility then renders an option that would not be dependable and realistic. The context of scholars failing to reach a genuine consensus over the objective definition of freedom implies that subjective views will always take precedence. The initial understanding was that if people are free to do whatever they want, if they pay attention to certain demands and values, then they could claim that they have achieved human dignity.
If someone cannot achieve objective freedom then, human dignity as freedom is unrealistic as well. If someone has the liberty to abandon, dump or kill a child on the ground of his or her freedom to do whatever she wants, then the research would challenge such actions.
The existential reality in KwaZulu-Natal seem to point to some situation where personal choices seem to be given more priority than looking at an objective view of reality. This may be affirmed through the observation of the extent to which children with disabilities are taken care of. Human dignity as freedom implies that a child has the liberty to live his or her own life to the full, while the parents’ subjective interests may block the realization of interests of a child with disabilities. Some parents might claim to have the freedom to choose what they want in life and hence, when faced with the birth of a child with disabilities, they may sometimes forgo the life of a child with disabilities considering the frustrations and aspirations related to it. Some of the parents may claim to have liberty to do away with a child with disabilities because the state of a child may not meet their interests. Human dignity as freedom can be fulfilling if understood objectively. Subjective inclinations to human dignity as freedom may be the source of a conflict of interests and may pose a serious threat to children with disabilities. In this sense, we may consider that the concept of human dignity
644 Ibid.
645 Ibid.
as freedom may not be a full reliable resource material. It may play a major role if attached to other facets and variables.