Could we possibly imagine a serious ethical and moral framework that would justify the killing of a person who, under the guise of artistic creativity or political freedom of expression—despite being degrading to specific individuals or groups—expressed their convictions? Of course not. The brutal beheading of the teacher must be unequivocally condemned. There may be causal explanations for such an act, but there is no excuse for it.
However, the horrific act that led to the teacher's death should not obscure the fact that the teacher himself made a mistake. Rather than using the controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from Charlie Hebdo as an example of the abuse of free expression, he used them to justify and exemplify free speech. In doing so, he unintentionally triggered a misguided radical to commit a politically and religiously motivated murder.
The reactions to the French teacher's beheading by an Islamic extremist further reveal, with few exceptions, how inadequately educated many of the so-called "educated" people are and to what extent they lack the capacity for critical thinking.
It should be the task of every educator to convey that freedom of expression is not absolute and, therefore, not unlimited. Like all other areas of human activity, free speech must be limited by the responsibilities inherent in the exercise of human freedom. Elsewhere, I have discussed the connection between freedom and responsibility and made clear that they are two sides of the same coin. We cannot think of freedom without responsibility, and responsibility is void if one is not free to act. The liberty of human beings is, therefore, about responsible freedom. Irresponsible freedom—defined as the arbitrary exercise of will, manifesting itself in unchecked egoism—gives only the illusion of freedom. A person who is a prisoner of their impulses and self-centeredness is not free; rather, they are held hostage by their own morally deficient personality.
From my essay on the Crisis of Morality: "True human freedom is finite freedom, limited by the conditions of social coexistence and the legitimate aspirations of all other individuals. We must not mistake freedom for independence from everything; instead, it must be understood as a choice within the framework of something larger."
This quotation highlights that our responsibility as human beings extends to all other individuals and living organisms, in every social and political context, because they hold relevance in relation to our actions. The boundary between our freedom and the freedom of others, when expressed in a formal and universally applicable manner, is what we commonly refer to as justice.
Injustice, therefore, occurs when one's freedom extends beyond the boundaries of justice and infringes upon the freedom of another, thus preventing them from exercising their own choices. When we meet the demands of justice through our own actions, we practice ethical and moral righteousness. This principle also establishes the ongoing responsibility of the legislature to define, at any given time and place, the legitimate claims to freedom of all individuals in relevant contexts and to codify them into law. The application of justice is dynamic, as it must account for the evolution of human coexistence and its respective contexts, but the concept of justice remains timeless and unchanging. This truth explains why positive legislation that neglects this normative principle can embody wrong—something that has occurred throughout history.
As a result, it becomes clear how utterly irresponsible and morally unjustifiable any form of blasphemy is, as it violates the legitimate claim of religious practitioners to freedom, without justification for such interference. Even if a legal provision (whether immoral or ill-conceived) were to permit blasphemy, it would never be ethically justifiable to mock or ridicule another person's faith. Provoking Muslims by making fun of the Prophet Muhammad is just as inappropriate as provoking Christians by mocking Jesus Christ in satirical works or art. In Paris, Charlie Hebdo was misguided and irresponsible when it mocked Islam's religious figures in its satirical magazine, just as Pamela Geller’s cartoon contest "Draw Muhammad" in Garland, Texas was irresponsible. In both cases, the agitators hid behind misinterpretations of the principle of free expression—either a misguided understanding of the U.S. First Amendment or a neglect of the moral-philosophical ideal that dictates responsible action.
Truly free and responsible individuals have long understood that responsible behavior is never simply about complying with the law. They recognize that legal provisions primarily set the boundaries for what one cannot do to avoid harm, while moral responsibility dictates what we must do and how we should act.
