The Limits of Liberty

Obviously, being free feels satisfying. But it does not necessarily feel good in a deep sense. Take for example something we all do once we are free from our obligations: watching Netflix.

Unless you were watching a truly fantastic show, satisfying your inner sloth’s desire to watch 12 hours of Netflix might lead to some post-binge regret. You’d certainly have some regret if you chose Netflixing over volunteering for an overnight shift at the Harvard Square Homeless Shelter.

But we might say that comparing Netflixing and volunteering is like comparing apples and oranges—it is up to each of us to decide what to do with our free time, and we should allow ourselves the liberty to choose an apple or an orange whenever we want. No doubt, it is important to be committed to virtues like freedom and liberty: being unconstrained is a luxury like no other. But if we are committed to virtues at all, why stop at liberty?

It seems to me that we often do stop at liberty, though. Take for example the hot-button issue of single-gender social organizations at Harvard. A sizable portion of the community has vocally defended students’ liberty to join final clubs, sororities, and fraternities after administrators have shown that they are willing to use their powers to punish those who join. Despite this, punch season this year also shows us that students continue to exercise their liberty to join these organizations. However, these same people seem to forget that such institutions do not live up to other virtues—most notably, inclusivity—that are important to building a strong social fabric.

I have little doubt that most people in these organizations believe that empathy and inclusiveness are virtues that one should strive toward. As one final club alumnus stated to the New York Times, single-gender entities exist so that one can learn from others of the same gender, also adding that “It is not a rejection of anyone.”

But it is easy to forget what embodying virtues like empathy and inclusivity looks like when you are surrounded by people like you. A room full of men would find it hard to understand what it is like to be a woman, often reduced to an object that men compete over to possess. Similarly, a room full of women would find it hard to comprehend how difficult it is to be vulnerable as a man, especially when others expect men to be strong and self-secure.

However, many seem to ignore such a problem. Defenders of single-gender groups make arguments that amount to one thing: let us be free to go about our own gender-based business. Even women who defend sororities as safe spaces seem to think that they should be unconstrained in participating in such groups.

The result of such commitments to liberty is that we become limited in how we achieve other virtues. Surely, safe spaces for women in the form of sororities are helpful. But the trade-off is that there is less incentive to seek out spaces that try to fix the harmful inter-gender relationships that are the reason safe spaces exist in the first place; more empathy among women is a good thing, but the opportunity cost is more empathy among men and women.

To put it directly, this is the problem: allowing ourselves the option to join such narrow groups often undermines other commitments we have. Just as having the option to watch Netflix can undermine the good of volunteering, having the option join single-gender groups can undermine empathy and inclusion.

This is not to say that administrators should use their power to limit our incentives and options. Rather, we should start asking ourselves the following question: Why do we often choose liberty despite its costs to other ideals?

I think we make this choice because it is easy—being free is the natural state of things. As libertarian thinker Robert Nozick noted, even if a society tried to distribute goods according to some virtuous ideal, the natural liberty people have to work and give away the fruits of their labor would upset that ideal. And insofar as work and giving is satisfying, we are hardwired to do whatever satisfies us, even if that often does not include working, giving, or being virtuous.

So yes, it is easy to laze around in your room all day or join organizations with others of your own gender. Yes, these things are natural and can be satisfying. But if I am right in thinking that people have an impulse to do good while also having the liberty and incentive to do otherwise, then there is urgent reason to reconcile these two impulses by looking at the harder, more uncommon use of freedom: Using freedom to chain ourselves to virtue.

Dan A. Valenzuela ’17-’18, is a philosophy concentrator living in Cabot House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.