Why Freedom Requires Self-Control

Freedom is usually described in terms of what we are allowed to do.

The fewer restrictions placed upon us, the freer we appear to be.

We value the freedom to speak, to choose, to travel, to associate with others and to determine the direction of our own lives.

These freedoms matter.

But there is another form of freedom that receives far less attention.

It is possible to be free from external control while remaining governed by something within ourselves.

An impulse.

An appetite.

Anger.

Fear.

Habit.

The desire for approval.

If we cannot choose whether to obey these things, how free are we?

Freedom Is More Than Having Choices

Imagine two people presented with exactly the same options.

Neither is being coerced. Neither is prevented from choosing differently.

One considers the consequences and makes a deliberate choice.

The other knows what they want to do but repeatedly finds themselves unable to resist an immediate impulse.

Externally, both possess the same freedom.

Internally, they do not.

This reveals something important.

Having choices is not the same as possessing the capacity to choose well.

Freedom therefore depends not only upon the absence of external restraint, but upon our ability to govern ourselves.

The Paradox of Self-Control

Self-control can initially appear to be the opposite of freedom.

We impose limits upon ourselves.

We delay gratification.

We refuse things we desire.

We accept disciplines and responsibilities that restrict what we can do in the immediate moment.

Yet those restrictions can create greater freedom later.

The person who controls spending acquires financial choices.

The person who develops physical discipline acquires physical capability.

The person who controls anger retains choices that might disappear after an irreversible action.

The person capable of resisting immediate gratification can pursue objectives that take years to achieve.

The restriction is real.

But so is the freedom it creates.

Every Impulse Has a Time Horizon

Many conflicts between self-control and desire are really conflicts between different versions of ourselves.

The present self wants something now.

The future self will experience the consequences.

An immediate pleasure may create a future constraint.

An immediate inconvenience may create a future opportunity.

This is why simply asking “What do I want?” is sometimes insufficient.

We may want several incompatible things simultaneously.

We may want the pleasure and the health.

The purchase and the savings.

The reaction and the relationship.

The comfort and the achievement.

Choosing therefore requires more than identifying desire.

It requires deciding which desire should govern the others.

Virtue Gives Freedom Direction

This is where the ancient idea of aretē becomes useful.

Virtue is not simply obedience to a collection of moral rules. It concerns excellence — the development and exercise of our capacities in accordance with their purpose.

Self-control matters because it allows those capacities to be directed.

Without it, whichever impulse is strongest at a particular moment can determine our behaviour.

That is not necessarily freedom.

It may simply be another form of control.

A person capable of saying no to themselves possesses something enormously valuable:

the ability to choose which version of themselves gets to act.

Systems Depend Upon This Too

The principle extends beyond individuals.

A business that consumes every available resource immediately cannot invest for its future.

An institution that responds to every short-term pressure can gradually abandon its long-term purpose.

A society that demands every desire be satisfied immediately may eventually discover that some freedoms depend upon restraint.

Healthy systems preserve capacity.

They do not merely respond to whatever demand is loudest in the present moment.

Neither should we.

The Freedom to Become

Perhaps freedom should therefore be understood in two dimensions.

There is freedom from — freedom from unnecessary coercion, restriction and interference.

But there is also freedom to — the capacity to act deliberately, pursue meaningful purposes and become something that immediate impulse alone could never produce.

The first can be granted by circumstances or institutions.

The second has to be developed.

And that may explain the apparent paradox.

Self-control restricts some of the things we can do now so that we retain the ability to choose what we can become later.

Freedom without choice is impossible.

But choice without self-command can be remarkably fragile.

Perhaps genuine freedom therefore begins not when nothing can restrain us, but when we are capable of deciding what deserves to.

From the series: Reflections on Virtue

This article forms part of an ongoing exploration of purpose, institutions, relationships and human flourishing adapted from Virtue: A Unified Theory by Carl Parry.