On Freedom

by Timothy Snyder

Aristotle was a value pluralist—like Kołakowski, he believed that there were many good things, not one or zero. When we are exercising judgment about which virtue applies in which situation, said Aristotle, we are doing right. This is true, but not quite all the truth. More than one virtue applies to almost any situation, so we have to choose. Since there are many good things, as Kołakowski argued, we must do some wrong even as we do right. The world of values is simply structured in this fashion. Since we are always deferring some virtue when we are affirming others, freedom assumes, in Kołakowski’s words, “the reality of evil.” As we gather from his use of the word evil, Kołakowski’s value pluralism means not relativism but a commitment to creative courage amid the clash of absolutes. We do right when we combine values and compromise with others, and when we accept that the concomitant evil leaves us responsible. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel concludes, “There can be good judgement without total justification.” A graduate of my high school, Hannah Beachler, put it this way when she accepted an Oscar: “Do your best, and your best is good enough.” The possible combinations of virtues are infinite, and so our actions as free people are not predictable. Kołakowski also thought that we could invent new virtues, and that they were the most important ones. They emerge when we do things that no one has the right to expect of us. His value pluralism was an adventure directed to...