Enlightenment and Modernity

Enlightenment and Modernity

Modernity simply refers to the transition from pre-traditional way of life towards a modernized, industrialized and secularized lifestyle. The purpose of modernity has been to enhance individual freedom.

Individual liberation has been a topic entangled in many debates. Some have blamed it to be a root cause in many communal evils while the optimists second it as an acceptable way of life that drives the human development urge within. In the various reviews, it is my personal opinion that modernity through individual liberation has indeed taken an unexpected and ambiguous direction far from the expectations of the pioneers.

The progress from slavery, to feudalism, to modern free trade was meant to give men more freedom in the running of their affairs. Free trade has led to immense advances in production technologies and in many other areas of human life, reflecting the power of economy driven by self-interest. It has also led to globalization, reducing the self-sufficient nature of past economies (Marx &Engel, 1848, p. 16). Free trade was crucial to the advent of modernity as by making individuals and nations reliant on one another and reducing relations between men to exchange of commodities, it forced even barbaric societies to adopt civilization.

In spite of all the positive contributions, Free trade has, however, not dismantled the dual nature of societies experienced under feudalism and the era of slavery. It unexpectedly led to the creation of a new set of classes; bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisie class consists of the owners of capital while the proletariat consists of the providers of labor. The modern economy has led to the concentration of means of production and wealth in the hands of a few while the rest are left to provide labor in order to increase the wealth of this few owners of capital. As Marx and Engels (1848, p. 18) point out, “laborers…live only so long as they find work, and…find work only so long as their labor increases capital”. Because of high competition among the proletariat class, its members are forced to work for meager wages-wages that cover only the bare necessities of life. When the competition becomes unsustainable a revolution ensues which destroys the accumulated capital of the bourgeoisie class.

While it is true that modernity has increased individual freedom, this freedom has caused various unforeseen consequences that tend to indict modernity. During the era of master-slave relationships and feudalism there was no rapid progress that characterizes modernity because competition was minimal. With the advent of modernity, however, competition increased. Although this competition brought with it progress far greater than that which had been experienced before, it has created some effects that threaten the existence of societies, for instance, global warming. Global warming is a direct result of increased industrialization that characterizes capitalism. Like Frankenstein observed on creating a monster, “I had desired it with ardor that exceeded moderation” (Shelley, 1818, p. 59), man is now realizing that his pursuit for wealth has been immoderate and cannot be sustained.

The level of ambiguity is also manifested in the freedom to challenge the law through various interpretations. This is very ironical as laws are agreed principles that govern societal behavioral activities. These laws are supposed to deter offenses that are detrimental to the society since such offenses threaten the existence of the very society. Since humans came together as a society to enjoy the security that would emerge in this kind of setting, failure to prosecute offenses through severe punishments would cause a society to fall back to barbarism. According to Becarria (1986, p. 10), modern laws and their execution are far from achieving the basic aim of men when they were forming societies. He claims that laws as well as the punishment that they impose should be precise. Therefore, they should not leave room for individual interpretations by judges or other persons who are tasked with judging offenders since such situations leave the interests of the society to a small group of people such as lawyers who have private interests.

Becarria (1986, p. 12) contends that the responsibility of creating laws should solely be a preserve of legislators or the sovereign, who have the mandate of the general populace. Moreover, laws should be syllogistically categorical such that by reading the law and examining the facts, judges should be able to give a verdict of guilty or not guilty without the need for interpretation. Such laws would also be clear to ordinary citizens and would, therefore, reduce the incidences of crime. To further prevent arbitrary application of law by judges, citizens should not be subject to any laws that are not provided for. This move would encourage the development of unequivocal laws in a society.

The modern laws besides allowing judges to interpret them also provide for inequitable punishments, therefore, failing to deter offenses. The aim of laws is to prevent future crimes through meting the right punishments because crimes already committed cannot be reversed (Beccaria, 1986, p. 11). The inequitable nature of modern laws, thus, does not help to deal with crime in the right manner from a philosophical viewpoint.

Conclusion

The implicit purpose of modernity was to confer more freedom to individuals in the conduct of their life affairs. However, it has led to decrease in liberty for the majority of people in various subtle ways. This decline in liberty has been caused by inequitable laws, improper application of societal laws, and the failure to closely examine the philosophy of free trade that underlies modernity.

References

Beccaria, C. (1986). On Crimes and Punishment. New York: Hackett Publishing.

Marx, K., & Engel, F. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Shelley, M. (1818). Frankenstein. Ashbury: Lackington.