58 Global Ethics for Leadership
The most accurate way of referring to such freedom is as “self-
causality” (“Selbstursächlichkeit”). This aspect becomes apparent in all
attempts to describe freedom concretely. If freedom of thought is the
central aspect, this means no one can deprive human beings of the pos-
sibility of thinking for themselves. If the decisive aspect of freedom is
seen as freedom of action, then I am considered to have the ability to
undertake such action myself. Those who see the central aspect of free-
dom as being free will, insist that human beings themselves determine
the content of their will. Finally, if freedom is considered to be freedom
of choice, this highlights that I make a decision myself and that I allow
this decision to be attributed to me. In all these concrete examples, free-
dom is understood as an expression of self-causality.
One question often asked is how we are able to maintain the concep-
tion of freedom, given the finite existence of human beings. Thus classi-
cal philosophy did not confer an absolute freedom of choice on human
beings but only a relative freedom, related to the possibilities that exist
at any given time.^21 Human beings are able to choose only from a lim-
ited number of options because they are physical creatures bound to
space and time. The Stoics believed it possible to speak of absolute free-
dom only in relation to the freedom of the inner human being, for the
soul represents that which is eternal in the human being.^22
4.2 Freedom within the Limits of Capacities
However, even if we attribute the possibility of self-transcendence to
human beings in one way or another, we are still able to speak only of
limited freedom in considering the course of human life. The most fun-
damental limitation is the finite nature of human life. More precisely, we
21
Aristotle, De Motu Animalium. 700 b 22; cf: Walter Warnach, Freiheit, in:
Joachim Ritter (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 2, (Basel:
Schwabe, 1972), 1068. 22
Ibid 1070.