Freedom and responsibility - what is the meaning of these concepts? Freedom in itself is a rather broad definition of both human capabilities and a philosophical canon on which far more than one treatise of the Athenian sages is based. To be free means to have oneself exactly to the extent that the possibilities of this or that person allow it. But at the same time, it is difficult not to get confused in the definitions, trying to distinguish between “freedom from” and “freedom for” by characteristics.
The first forms a space of complete anarchy, releasing the animal nature of man and the desire for chaos. The second characteristic, on the contrary, implies freedom enshrined in a multitude of legal documents. It allows you to enjoy the inalienable rights received from birth, without violating the personal space of other people. Thus, if the firstdefinition is chaotic and does not accept systematics, the second implies the conditional responsibility of the individual for his deeds, thoughts and deeds.
But the question of the topic under consideration today is freedom and responsibility, which means that, giving definitions to the first, it follows from it that the second should be deduced. Responsibility, in the narrow sense of the word, implies the possibilities limited by the law and morality of a person to be responsible for the committed actions. But if everything is more or less clear with the legal characteristic, then what about morality? Freedom and responsibility in the moral and ethical sense are inseparable concepts that depend on each other. And, accordingly, every person has them, regardless of his legal capacity, legal capacity and other legal aspects. Morality, on the other hand, is a much broader scope, if only because, unlike the law, it examines a person from the inside, giving a complete description of all accomplished or non-accomplished deeds within the possibilities of his self-consciousness.
It immediately becomes clear that the topic of the issue under consideration is heterogeneous and ambiguous. After all, freedom and responsibility, giving rise to each other, are philosophically mutually exclusive concepts.
For example, a policeman, pursuing an armed criminal and protecting his own and others' lives, has every right to kill him and thus does not go beyond the rights granted to him by law.
But with the same action, this police officer crosses the line of permissible influence on the freedom of the murderedof a person, and therefore, in moral terms, even exceeds the boundaries of what is permitted, which are allowed to him by society. At the same time, from the point of view of the same society, the policeman will be right. If the persecuted, defending himself, kills the guardian of the law, then society considers this murder as an aggravating circumstance and an excess of the rights of the killer in relation to the victim …
I would like to note that freedom and responsibility should be inseparable not only within the framework of the law and conscience of a person. The meaning of these concepts, their correct understanding should be inculcated by parents and educational institutions from the very moment of a person's birth and his formation as a person. Otherwise, "to be free" will become equivalent to "succumb to anarchy" for him, and responsibility will only be a cage, which will inevitably lead to deviant behavior of a person and will pose a threat not only to him, but to society as a whole.
