Good post! I feel like unfreedom is not adequately acknowledged in most mainstream conceptions of ethical progress. When we deliberate between options, we do not deliberate between *every* option. A set of instrumental principles is always assumed as a background condition to our deliberation. These assumptions form an enclosure. In this enclosure, actions which reflect our assumptions are presented as indispensable, while those that don't are presented as irrelevant. Our enclosures are largely conditioned by social and historical forces. In moments of concentrated will we might write a principle in by self-legislation à la Kant, but these come once in a blue moon. By and large, you do not choose the laws of your will, the gods do. If you want what is good to also be obligatory for you, you must devote yourself to new gods, and pray that they transform the boundaries of your unfreedom.
Good post! I feel like unfreedom is not adequately acknowledged in most mainstream conceptions of ethical progress. When we deliberate between options, we do not deliberate between *every* option. A set of instrumental principles is always assumed as a background condition to our deliberation. These assumptions form an enclosure. In this enclosure, actions which reflect our assumptions are presented as indispensable, while those that don't are presented as irrelevant. Our enclosures are largely conditioned by social and historical forces. In moments of concentrated will we might write a principle in by self-legislation à la Kant, but these come once in a blue moon. By and large, you do not choose the laws of your will, the gods do. If you want what is good to also be obligatory for you, you must devote yourself to new gods, and pray that they transform the boundaries of your unfreedom.