Why Freedom?

In Simone de Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity, she states, among other things, that she values freedom. 

Other existentialists, such as Sartre, have also maintained this position. And so have philosophers such as John Stuart Mill. 

Anarchist thinkers have also promoted freedom as a value -- and even structured an entire theory around social relations that respect and preserve freedom. So have libertarians, free-market capitalists, etc. 

But... why freedom in the first place? What's so great about freedom? 

Out of all the values, what makes freedom so special? Why choose freedom as the value around which to structure a social, political, or ethical framework? 

First, why even bother to define freedom? Because if we don't work to define concepts like "freedom" for ourselves, we risk having those conceptions decided for us. 

Second, I should recognize the irony in asking these questions (and the privilege inherent in questioning the value of freedom). In doing so, I illustrate my ability to explore and choose from different options. I can evaluate, compare, and ultimately decide to accept a value system, and then I can change my mind. 

That ability to explore and choose -- combined with the time and resources to fulfill the choice -- may itself be an example of freedom in action. 

But freedom is arguably more than simply the ability to choose (or the illusion of choice, depending on your position). 

As de Beauvoir argues, freedom is also a movement; it is a process continuously projecting itself forwards. Put differently, freedom is only freedom if it works for the freedom of others. 

But this is just one definition of freedom. And, of course, the way in which freedom is defined will shape the conversation of why freedom matters. I don't attempt to define it here -- only to recognize that there are many different conceptions and that my biases affect the way I approach the idea of freedom. 

But still. Why freedom? 

An existentialist might argue that, because there is no a priori meaning in life, we must choose our meaning. And freedom is what allows us to choose. Without freedom, life can have no meaning. 

Another possible view -- such as that adopted by certain anarchists -- is that freedom matters because it enables us to enter into truly voluntary associations and develop non-coercive social relations. 

A utilitarian approach -- like that advanced by John Stuart Mill -- might argue that people know what's best for themselves, and that freedom is necessary in order for people to best develop their individual capacities and fulfill their potential. And that this is ultimately best for communities and societies as well. 

Some might argue that the importance of freedom is self-evident. And that freedom (like liberty) is an inalienable right. It is "God-given." 

Others might argue that freedom is important because it feels important -- because our experience tells us that being free feels better than being oppressed. 

Freedom may also advance other values. For example, freedom is arguably necessary for the promotion of the diversity of ideas and cultures. And freedom of movement and association matter for social diversity. 

A social or psychological approach might note that freedom or autonomy is essential to wellbeing; it can enable healthy development and social relations. 

Yet another position could be that "virtue" can't exist without the freedom to make moral choices. 

And maybe an answer to "why freedom?" lies in the question itself: Maybe there is an ethics of questioning and exploring alternatives that can only be exercised through freedom (similar to the virtue ethics point above). 

Are any of these satisfactory explanations? What are some positions that I have omitted? Does it even matter whether or not freedom matters?