In the broadest sense, freedom is the ability to act or not act as we choose, within the limits that we set for ourselves, or that are set for us by external factors. For example something as trivial as choosing what to eat for lunch is an everyday expression of freedom. This illustrates how freedom always exists within boundaries, both self-imposed and external, as we try to balance our preferences and desires with considerations such as health, budget, and societal pressures.

Freedom comes down to three aspects:

  1. Freedom of choice - the ability to decide between various options without external coercion.
  2. Freedom of action - the ability to implement chosen options, acting in accordance with one’s own beliefs and goals.
  3. Inner freedom - autonomy of thought and emotion, the freedom to be oneself without pressure or manipulation.

Freedom can mean different things to different people. Cultural background, personal values, and life circumstances shape how individuals experience and prioritise these aspects, so any definition must remain flexible. For a terminally ill patient, freedom might mean pursuing aggressive treatment in line with their will, or choosing palliative care to die with dignity. However, in such decisions, freedom is unevenly distributed: access to quality healthcare, financial resources, and supportive family or social networks can heavily shape which options are realistically available, so some patients face constraints that others never encounter.

Aspect of Freedom Example in a terminally ill patient
Freedom of choice The patient decides between available treatment options or chooses palliative care.
Freedom of action The patient is able to carry out that decision by accessing care or arranging their environment to support their wishes.
Inner freedom The patient reflects on personal values, beliefs, and acceptance of mortality, making a choice aligned with their authentic self rather than external pressure.

Are we ever truly free?

However, if freedom is always shaped and limited by external and internal forces, including the freedom of others, law, responsibility, societal norms, and conscience, the question arises whether we are ever truly free.

At first sight, it may seem that the existence of law, social expectations, and the freedom of others reduces our autonomy. Yet, a world without such limits would not necessarily mean more freedom. Without legal boundaries, the stronger would dominate the weaker, and what would appear as “absolute freedom” would quickly turn into chaos or oppression. In this sense, certain limits do not destroy freedom, but make its coexistence possible. John Stuart Mill defended the idea that liberty should extend only until it harms others, presenting a vision of an idealised society in which freedom survives only through structured constraints. It was a compelling vision, yet it underestimates the complexities of real social inequalities and human behaviour.

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” - John Stuart Mill

However, the deeper challenge to freedom may not be external but internal. Sometimes it is a habit that quietly steers us, a bias picked up long ago, or an old fear making us doubt just as we consider a new path. Even when no one forces us, our choices are inherently shaped by our upbringing, biology, culture, and personal experiences. These inner forces can be as constraining as any external rule, though they get often overlooked.

In this sense, freedom is not all or nothing. It depends on how aware we are of our choices and the world around us. Even with limits set by society, circumstances, or our own minds, true freedom comes from acting in line with our values and understanding how our situation shapes what we can do.

Enjoyed the article? Subscribe to my RSS feed :D