Some moral and political philosophers have argued that our most important value should be happiness, while other have argued that it should be freedom. explain this debate. make sure to describe the views and reasoning of at least one philosopher on either side, and to illustrate the disagreement by giving at least one example of a decision or public policy over which the two sides would disagree.

First of all, it should be said that Nietzsche and Freud, as well as immoralist philosophers, downplayed the meaning of the word “morality.” Nietzsche suspected cowardice for this, Freud - censorship of the Super-Ego, whose task (the task of censorship) is to suppress the individual for the good of society. The idea comes to the modern human that namely immorality is real freedom, and moral people are 'miserable prisoners in shackles.' From the point of view of modern science, this point of view is a dangerous delusion.

It is possible that freedom and happiness in their essence represent one and the same, but only expressed in two forms. Therefore, there is no essential contradiction between them.

A historical and philosophical study of the concept of happiness, originating in Aristotle's philosophy, allows showing that advancement in theoretical and practical recognition of the human right to pursuit of happiness is an essential characteristic of the humanization of social life. In particular, there is an understanding of humanization as a process of realization in the history of the meta-principles of humanity, justice and social freedom in their unity. Relationships and behavior conforming with them are essential factors of happiness.

Kant did not explain in vain that duty is by no means a concrete concept, but a conditional one, which, however, has unconditional value. Simply put, a person can be mistaken about the correctness of his actions, the main thing is that he believes in their usefulness to society, in which case he will be completely happy and filled with creative energy. The choice of individual freedom instead of public service perfectly describes the mechanism of free will. A person has a free choice - to be happy or unhappy. It is unlikely that anyone will want to take advantage of such freedom and prefer to be unhappy instead of happiness.

Explanation:

answer; ///he could not explain why the continents drifted;