The topic under consideration is very relevant in our time. The right to freedom is interpreted as the ability of each individual person to take any desired actions at his discretion and of his own will within the framework of the relevant legislation, without violating the rights and freedoms of other people.
The problem of human freedom and responsibility
To begin with, it is worth interpreting both of these concepts. Freedom is one of the main complex philosophical categories that determine the essence of man. It represents the ability of an individual to think and perform certain actions, proceeding solely from his own intentions, interests and desires, and not under the influence from outside.
In the modern world, in the context of the accelerated pace of the evolution of civilization, the special role of the individual in the social framework is rapidly strengthening, which is why the problem of individual freedom and responsibility to society more and more often appears.
From ancient times to the present day, almost all developed philosophical systems are passionate about the idea of freedom. The first attempt to explain the organic relationship of freedom with the need for its recognition belongs to Benedict Spinoza. He interpreted this concept from the point of view of conscious necessity.
Further, the understanding of the dialectical unity of this union is expressed by Friedrich Hegel. From his point of view, the scientific, dialectical-materialistic solution to the problem under consideration will be the recognition of freedom as an objective necessity.
In society, the freedom of the individual is significantly limited by his interests. In this regard, a problem arises: a single person is an individual, and his desires often do not coincide with the interests of society. Therefore, the person must follow social laws, because otherwise is fraught with consequences.
Currently (the peak of the development of democracy), the problem of individual freedom is expanding to global status. Now it is being resolved internationally. For this, all kinds of “protective” legislative acts are systematically developed and adopted, in which the rights and freedoms of the individual are outlined. This in the modern world acts as the basis of any policy. However, far from all the problems of this orientation have been resolved in the world and, in particular, in Russia.
It is also necessary to note the syncretism of such concepts as human freedom and responsibility, in view of the fact that the former is not permissiveness, and for violation of third-party rights and freedoms the individual is responsible in accordance with the law adopted by society. Responsibility is the so-called price of freedom. The problem of freedom and responsibility is relevant in any country in the world, which makes it a priority, and the search for a solution is of paramount importance.
A kind of freedom in terms of philosophy
She may be:
- internal (ideological, spiritual, freedom of the mind, its agreement with the soul, etc.);
- external (arises in the process of interaction with the outside world, material freedom, freedom of action);
- civil (social freedom, which does not limit the freedom of others);
- political (freedom from the effects of political despotism);
- religion (choice of the Lord);
- spiritual (the so-called power of the individual over his own egoism, his sinful feelings and passions);
- moral (a person’s choice regarding his good or evil principle);
- economic (freedom to dispose of all his property at his discretion);
- true (the desire of the human nature for freedom);
- natural (recognition of the need to live according to established natural laws);
- actions (ability to act according to a conscious choice);
- choice (empowering a person to consider and choose the most suitable option for the outcome of the event);
- will (empowering the individual to choose according to his desires and preferences);
- absolute (a situation where the will of each person in it is not subject to infringement by the will of other participants).
Freedom regulators
They limit it to varying degrees. This may include:
- freedom of others;
- state;
- culture
- moral;
- nature;
- education;
- the laws;
- morality;
- own morals and attitudes;
- understanding and awareness of the need.
Examples of freedom and responsibility are found, so to speak, at every step. If we consider them from the point of view of the existing problem with respect to these categories, then this can include situations: injuring or killing a criminal in the course of self-defense, mother stealing food for her hungry children, etc.
Philosophical approaches to the interpretation of this concept
Representatives of ancient philosophy (Socrates, Diogenes, Seneca, Epicurus, etc.) believed that freedom is the meaning and purpose of human existence.
Medieval scholastics (Anselm of Canterbury, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas and others) perceived it as reason, and any acts committed were possible only within the framework of church dogmas, otherwise freedom was identified with heresy, a serious sin.
Representatives of the New Age (Paul Henri Holbach, Thomas Hobbes, Pierre Simon Laplace and others) interpreted freedom as a natural state of man, a path to justice and social equality.
The problem under consideration was thoroughly investigated by German classical philosophers. For example, Immanuel Kant believed that freedom is an intelligible object (idea), inherent only to man, and for Johann Fichte it is an exceptional absolute reality.
Concept of responsibility
It is a category of law and ethics, which reflects the moral, legal and social attitude of a person to all of humanity as a whole and specifically to society. The building of modern society, the strengthening of the conscious principle within the framework of its social life, the introduction of the people to independence in relation to the management of society, and all this along with the ethical responsibility of each individual.
The legal framework includes administrative, criminal and civil liability, which, in addition to identifying the corpus delicti, also takes into account the ethical components of the offender (the conditions of his upbringing, occupation, degree of awareness of his guilt, the presence of a desire for further correction). Against this background, moral and legal responsibility are intertwined (the process of individual awareness of the interests of society subsequently leads to an understanding of the laws of the progressive nature of the development of history).
Respect for all the rights and freedoms of the individual, as well as the existence of responsibility before the law for crimes committed - the main sign of a rule of law.
The evolution and improvement of human civilization dictate the need for civilized development and the legal aspect, as a result of which the concept of a purely legal state appeared, which was the equivalent of any statehood.
Legal lawlessness went into existence (human rights and freedoms were not guaranteed and protected by nothing). At present, society has in its arsenal new methods of legal arrangement of the individual, providing him confidence in the future.
The syncretism of the concepts under consideration regarding personality
The concept of individual freedom affects the philosophical aspect of life. Against this background, a rhetorical question looms: “Does a person have real freedom or is everything that he does dictated by the social rules and norms within which this individual exists?” First of all, freedom is a conscious choice regarding worldview and behavior. However, society in every possible way limits it by means of various rules and norms, which are determined by the intention to create a harmoniously developing individual within the framework of the social and social system.
Great minds wondered: “How are freedom and responsibility interconnected?” They came to the conclusion that responsibility is the basis, the inner core of a person, which regulates his ethical position and motivational component regarding certain actions and behavior in general. In a situation where an individual adjusts his behavior in accordance with social principles, we are talking about such an internal ability of a person as conscience. However, this kind of combination of the concepts under consideration is more controversial than sophisticatedly harmonious. It is more correct to say that the freedom and responsibility of the individual are equally complementary and mutually exclusive.
Types of Responsibility
It happens:
- social;
- moral;
- political;
- historical;
- legal;
- collective;
- personal (individual);
- group.
There are various examples of liability. This may include the case when the Johnson & Johnson company, having discovered traces of cyanide in Tylenol capsules, refused to manufacture this product. The total loss in this case amounted to $ 50 million. Subsequently, the company management announced that they are taking all kinds of measures to protect the population. This is an example of social responsibility. Unfortunately, such cases are very rare in today's consumer market.
You can give everyday examples of responsibility and freedom: when a person has the freedom to choose the music he wants to listen to, but there are also restrictions on the time of listening to it (in case the music sounds very loud after eleven in the evening, there is an administrative responsibility, as a result of which threatened with a fine).
Models of the relationship between man and society
There are only three of them:
- The struggle for freedom (irreconcilable and open conflict of these categories).
- Adaptation to the environment (the individual voluntarily follows the laws of nature, sacrificing his desire and desire to be free).
- Escape from the surrounding reality (a person, realizing his powerlessness in the struggle for freedom, goes to the monastery or goes into himself).
Thus, in the process of understanding how freedom and responsibility are interconnected, human behavior should be taken into account. If an individual clearly understands what he is doing a particular action for and does not try to go against established social norms and rules, then the categories in question are in perfect harmony with each other.
A person as a person can be realized only if he uses his freedom as the right to choose. It can also be noted that how high this life position will be, the same means and methods of achieving it will be in harmony with the laws of evolution of the surrounding reality. The concept of responsibility, in turn, is associated with the need to make a choice of methods and means to achieve the desired goal.
So, we can conclude that freedom contributes to the manifestation of individual responsibility, and responsibility acts as its guiding stimulus.
The problem of personality in the framework of the philosophy of existentialism
This concept from the point of view of existentialism is an end in itself, and the collective in this regard is only a means of ensuring the possibility of the material existence of its constituent individuals. At the same time, society is called upon to make available the free spiritual development of each person, guaranteeing the legal order regarding attacks on her freedom. However, the role of society is inherently negative, and the freedom offered to the individual acts as a private manifestation (political, economic, etc. freedom).
Representatives of this philosophy believed that true freedom is comprehensible only in the spiritual aspect (the opposite of the social), where individuals are seen as existences, and not as subjects of legal relations.
The central problem of the individual in the philosophy of existentialism is its alienation from society, which is understood as the transformation of the products of an individual's activity into an independent hostile force, as well as as a confrontation of the state specifically with man and the whole organization of labor, public institutions, other members of society, etc.
Particularly in depth, this philosophy explores subjective experiences regarding the alienation of a person from the outside world (for example, feelings of apathy, indifference, loneliness, fear, etc.).
According to existentialists, a man, contrary to his will, is placed in this world alien to him, in a certain fate. In this regard, the individual is constantly worried about questions regarding the meaning of his life, the reasons for his existence, a niche in the world, the choice of his own path, etc.
Despite the hypertrophied spiritual principle of man (irrational), existentialism made a significant contribution to the development of various philosophical approaches in which a person was perceived as a person, aimed at revealing the human nature.
The problem of personality in the philosophy of existentialism is reflected in the modern aspect of this issue. There are so-called excesses in it, but this did not prevent her from making a valuable contribution to the special perception of the individual and society. The philosophy of existentialism, through its principles, pointed to the need for a thorough review of the current value guidelines that guide both society and man as a person.
Law as a measure of individual freedom and responsibility
It acts as the official measure of existing freedom, its indicator of the boundaries of the necessary and possible, as well as the norm. In addition, law is the guarantor of the exercise of the freedom in question, a means of protecting and protecting it. In view of the fact that it is a legitimate scale, law can objectively reflect the achieved level of social development. In this sense, the category in question is a measure of progress. The consequence of this is the conclusion that law is both a measure of freedom as a product of development, and a measure of the social type of responsibility.
The German philosopher F. Hegel regarded it as the real being of such concepts as freedom and responsibility of the individual. Kantian provisions are also known regarding the fact that law is a sphere of freedom designed to ensure the external autonomy of an individual person. Only the greatest Russian writer L. Tolstoy believed, contrary to everything, that law is violence against a person.
Existing legal norms - these are the norms of freedom, which is legally recognized and expressed by the state through laws. As it has already become clear, the main meaning of the legal aspect of freedom is to protect the individual from the influence of external arbitrariness both on the part of the authorities and other citizens.
Summing up the above, we can conclude that categories such as rights, freedoms and responsibility of an individual are closely interconnected: the first is a guarantee of the second through the third.
Responsibility Concepts
They can be described as classical and non-classical. The essence of the first concept is that the individual is responsible for what he has done. In this case, the subject must be free and independent. At this point, the assertion is once again revealed that the freedom and responsibility of the individual are closely related concepts.
The subject in question performing the actions must clearly understand the possible consequences from them. And the last key moment of the classical concept - the individual must be responsible for his actions (for example, before the boss, the court, his own conscience, etc.). In this case, the subject acts as an accused.
Ethics of responsibility is a moral component of an act. In this regard, the saying is strengthened: "There is no act - there is no responsibility for it." If there is such a situation when the subject is a member of the group, and thus it is impossible to predict the consequences of specific actions, the need for a new concept. She became a non-classical concept. In this regard, the subject is now initially not responsible for his unsuccessful actions in the existing organizational structure, but for the successful completion of the business entrusted to him. And here, despite the existing uncertainty, the individual solves the problem through the proper organization of the assigned business (management of the process of its implementation). Now, in the non-classical concept, responsibility is associated not with the concept of absolute human freedom, but with the functions and norms of a democratic society.
, , , . . : , , , .