His life was completely his own. From whatever inclinations that prodded him towards his reasoning he came to an understanding that the natural causation of life was not something that need define his being. His value of life was distributed evenly among its participants. Although he acknowledged that when some people take actions that negatively impact others theyve lessened themselves in respect to life(p121, last couple lines) that does not increase or decrease his subjective value of them. I believe he would define this as freedom, a freedom that would be taken from him by the judgements of those that were incapable of empathizing with his reasoning. His momentary outburst with the clergyman where he openly and loudly criticized his position just reflected the conflict he had with trying to live life the truest way he knew how whilst being condemned to death for malicious premeditated murder, a thought that would never even cross the mind of someone like him. It would be an affront to his way of being.