In many cultures, the most general concept of man exists. This standard image is the standard for many adherents of a particular culture. However, it is worth noting that there are a large number of theories about what all the same distinguishes a person from the whole variety of living beings on planet Earth. From a biological point of view, only a person has a consciousness that allows him to look at the world around him in a completely different way. But only does consciousness make all of us key figures in the game of survival on the planet? Representatives of religious beliefs believe that God makes man. Indeed, only people can pray and directly realize the plan of God. Although the presented theories have a rational kernel, they do not fully illuminate reality. Indeed, besides the fact that a person is aware of himself, he is, above all, a social being. This means that it not only coexists with other representatives of its species, but also closely interacts with them.
Thus, all people are given the opportunity to decide exactly what they want to be, choose specific social groups or create their own. All the facts presented indicate the presence of such a feature as
freedom of choice, which will be discussed later in the article.
free will
There are several different terms that, in principle, characterize the same phenomenon, but from different perspectives. It follows that free will is the ability of any person, due to the presence of consciousness, to make a choice depending on specific circumstances. However, it should be noted that the term presented above characterizes a philosophical category, which is nothing more than a prototype of freedom of choice.
Two approaches to the vision of free will
In philosophy, there are two main approaches to the consideration of free will. The first is called metaphysical liberalism. It indicates that a person has free will due to the incorrectness of the assertion that determinism is true. In other words, adherents of this approach support the view that a person is free to make choices on his own. The second approach says that determinism is wrong. Thus, free will simply does not exist. It should be noted: the second approach is fundamentally wrong if, in addition to purely philosophical views, one focuses on other indicators. After all, man, in fact, is not constrained by rigid natural boundaries, unlike animals. The simplest example is the presence in the animal world of the food chain and its absence in the human environment.
What is freedom of choice?
Freedom of choice is essentially the same as free will, but the first term is used not in philosophy, but in jurisprudence. As history shows, for many centuries people have been deprived of the opportunity to personally choose something for themselves. It was only in the middle of the 20th century that it was decided that human rights were the main priority. Thus, since that time, freedom of choice is not just a term, but the principle of the realization by people of their rights and freedoms. It follows that this definition must be viewed through the prism of just law.
Freedom of choice in law
Almost all over the world, at the level of legislation, there are normative acts that enshrine the principle of freedom of choice and create conditions for its direct implementation. In this article, the author will consider this principle through the prism of national legal traditions of the Russian Federation. Given the current trend of democratism in the Russian Federation, freedom of choice is a personal, free right of each person to fully use his powers, as well as the resources that he possesses, such as money. There are several basic examples of the manifestation of the principle of freedom of choice, namely:
- the right of the employee to personally choose the place and type of labor;
- the right of the consumer to spend his money to meet their own needs;
Thus, freedom of choice, examples of which are presented above, is to a greater extent the totality of powers that a person can exercise.
Constitutional principle
It should be remembered that chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation enshrines a number of fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen. One such is the right to freedom of choice. But there is one rather interesting fact. A direct definition of the right to freedom of choice does not exist in the Constitution. It is an aggregate concept that defines a person’s ability to exercise their constitutional rights. An example is chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which enshrines various powers, namely:
- The right to life (Article 20).
- The right to liberty and security of person (Article 22).
- The right to privacy (Article 23).
- The right to freedom of religion (Article 28), etc.
As we understand it, constitutional law is fundamental in essence, therefore, there is simply no sense in separately prescribing the principle of freedom of choice, because it embodies all the powers that the Constitution of the Russian Federation gives to every citizen and person.
The problem of freedom of choice
Today, many jurists are considering the meaning of freedom of choice in reality. There are many theories about this. One of them says that freedom of choice is a person’s immediate opportunity to act within the framework that is prescribed by the current legislation of Russia and the constitution. On the other hand, a person is free to choose not only within the framework of formatted official norms, but also to be guided also by his moral principles. Thus, the fact remains whether laws should be a priority in the process of direct choice, or is it a purely personal competence? Most likely, people are given the opportunity to choose for themselves, but any decision should be within the framework of the legal regime that exists in Russia.
Freedom, choice, responsibility
Equally important is the question of the relationship between freedom of choice and responsibility. The fact is that the Russian Constitution as it were fixes the principle described in the article in full. In fact, a person can do whatever he wants. But some social relations, morality and other factors do not allow people to carry out absolutely all their ideas. For example, a person wants to commit an offense. In fact, he makes his choice. But for him he will bear the responsibility established by law. From the point of view of law, any actions outside the legal framework should be punished if they are negative. But from the standpoint of common sense, a person is actually responsible for his choice. Thus, freedom of choice is a dual category that exists both in the legal and philosophical fields.
Many lawyers see the solution of the problem of correlation of freedom of choice and responsibility in the moral principles of society. After all, as already mentioned earlier, man is, first of all, a social being. Therefore, in the process of interacting with other individuals, he must obey the generally established rules, without observing which any of us will become like an animal.
Violation of freedom of choice
Very often the state, which should be the actual guarantor of ensuring human rights and freedoms, violates all the principles of this sphere. In this case, we are talking about specific political regimes that come to power in a particular state, for more convenient control over people. As the practice of many centuries has shown, such anti-democratic regimes almost always infringe on the rights of people. At the same time, the population of such countries actually does not have freedom of choice. Because any manifestations of the initiative are punished, since people must live exclusively in a deliberately created framework. In such countries, as a rule, there are "dead" constitutions. Because totalitarian power understands that constitutional law is fundamental in nature. With strict observance of constitutional norms, it is impossible to oppress the population in any way.
It should be noted: such regimes of total control do not bring anything good both for the state and for residents on its territory. Although at the first stages of organizing a new country, a rigid framework is simply necessary, because without them it is impossible to achieve the desired effect.
To summarize
In conclusion, it must be said that freedom of choice actually makes us all human. Therefore, do not neglect this opportunity, but rather, try to use it constantly, in all key life situations.