Marbles - Squid Game
Marbles - Squid Game
Marbles - Squid Game
BSECE 3
ETHICS
Question: Based on the module—on its discussion about “freedom”, in what way
players in the squid game could say, “we are free” and/or “we are NOT free”? Please
explain.
All throughout history, theorists, thinkers, and philosophers have raised multiple
varying views on what really constitutes true freedom. Presented on the module were
some of those views, their theorists, and how they apply to conditions present in life.
The TV series Squid Game explores human nature, their behavior, and their skills and
judgment, by putting humans in life-and-death situations. Others may even consider the
games in squid game a true test of human morality as it tests their decision-making
skills in a higher ethical level. In the notion of freedom, I’ll be relating two views - that of
Isaiah Berlin and Jean Jacques Rousseau – to the perception of freedom by players in
the marbles games from squid game.
In his work “Two concepts of Liberty” (2002), Isaiah Berlin made distinctions
between positive and negative freedom. According to him, negative liberty is the
absence of obstacle, barriers, or constraints. On the other hand, the positive liberty is
the possibility of acting, in such way as to control one’s life. In other words, a person
always acts as an active actor rather than a passive spectator or an object which is
being controlled by other people.
This view of human freedom by Berlin makes two distinctions of freedom namely,
positive and negative liberty. Looking at the situation of players in the marbles games,
all of them possess the positive liberty and none of them have the negative liberty. Just
by being on the game, the players were automatically given restrictions and constraints.
Their actions are very limited and they must follow very specific rules in playing the
games. Failure of compliance means death. In the notion of negative liberty, the players
couldn’t say that they are free. In the notion of positive liberty on the other hand, the
players could say that they are free. Though they may be restricted, constrained, and
limited to some actions, they also possess the ability to act. Without question, they are
in control of their lives. They could choose whether to follow the rules or not. Though
there may be consequences, still they could choose whether or not they want to be
confined to all the rules of the games.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), in his notion of ‘True Liberty” he stated
“Individuals should pursue an ideal of “true liberty” in which they will be able to achieve
their full human potential and live virtuously”. The search for the real human freedom
lies in overcoming the desire for self-love and possessing self-mastery and self-
preservation. Positive human freedom focuses not on overcoming what is forbidden
from doing, but on the action which allows an individual to reach the optimum
potentials.
This second view of human freedom involves the concept of doing what is
virtuous, good, chaste, excellent, or showing high moral standards. That, according to
Rousseau is true liberty. True, the squid games pushed the players on the edge of their
wits and judgment. What others call as the “true personas” of the players were revealed
upon facing life-and-death situations. Having all these negative premises of the game,
finding one true liberty according to the definitions of Rousseau is certainly not the
easiest. But on watching the 6th episode of the squid game, I found two. The first one is
between the partnership of the old man and his partner. More than partners, they were
friends. Their friendship isn’t built upon strategy on winning the game. Despite the
inherit evilness of the games, they were good to each other. In that sense, they are free.
The same thing can be said of the partnership of that one lady from North Korea and
her partner. They also became friends, however short amount of time it was. Both of
these partnerships overcame the desire for self-love. This is apparent due to the
sacrifices one of their partners did in the end. They achieved the full human potential
and chose to act virtuously. Needless to say, all the other players who did all they can to
win the game without regard to their partners or to the other players did not possess
true liberty.