The topic under consideration is very relevant in our time. The right to freedom is interpreted as the ability of each individual person to perform any desired action at his own discretion and at 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 most complex philosophical categories that define the essence of man. It represents the ability of an individual to think and perform certain actions based solely on their own intentions, interests and desires, and not under external influence.
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 quickly strengthening, which is why the problem of freedom and responsibility of the individual to society is increasingly emerging.
From ancient times to the present day, almost all developedphilosophical systems are fascinated by 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 a perceived need.
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, a person must follow social laws, because otherwise is fraught with consequences.
At the present time (the peak of the development of democracy), the problem of individual freedom is growing to the status of a global one. Now it is being addressed at the international level. To this end, various “protective” legislative acts are systematically developed and adopted, which outline the rights and freedoms of the individual. This is the basis of any policy in the modern world. However, far from all problems of this direction have been solved in the world today and, in particular, in Russia.
It is also necessary to note the syncretism of such concepts as the freedom and responsibility of a person, due to the fact that the first is not permissiveness, and for the violation of third-party rights and freedoms, the individual is responsible in accordance with the law adopted by the society. Responsibility is the so-called price of freedom. The issue of freedom andResponsibility is relevant in any country in the world, which makes it a priority, and finding a solution is of paramount importance.
A kind of freedom in terms of philosophy
She could be:
- internal (ideological, spiritual, freedom of the mind, its harmony with the soul, etc.);
- external (occurs in the process of interaction with the outside world, material freedom, freedom of action);
- civil (social freedom that does not restrict the freedom of others);
- political (freedom from political despotism);
- religion (God's choice);
- spiritual (the so-called power of an individual over his own egoism, his sinful feelings and passions);
- moral (a person's choice regarding his good or evil inclination);
- economic (freedom to dispose of all your property at your own discretion);
- true (the desire of the human essence for freedom);
- natural (recognition of the need to live according to established natural laws);
- action (the ability to act according to a conscious choice);
- choice (giving a person the opportunity to consider and choose the most acceptable option for the outcome of an event);
- will (giving the individual the ability to choose according to their desires and preferences);
- absolute (a situation where the will of each person in it is not infringed by the will of other participants).
Freedom Regulators
They restrict her to varying degrees. These include:
- freedom for others;
- state;
- culture;
- morality;
- nature;
- education;
- laws;
- morality;
- own manners and steadfastness;
- understanding and awareness of the need.
Examples of freedom and responsibility are found, so to speak, at every turn. If we consider them from the point of view of the existing problem regarding these categories, then this can include situations: traumatizing or killing a criminal in 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, etc.) perceived it as reason, and any actions performed were possible only within the framework of church dogmas, otherwise freedom was identified with heresy, a grave sin.
Representatives of the Modern 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 carefully studied by German classical philosophers. For example, Immanuel Kant believed that freedom isan intelligible object (idea) inherent only in man, and for Johann Fichte it is an exceptional absolute reality.
Responsibility concept
It is a category of law and ethics, which reflects the moral, legal and social attitude of the individual to all of humanity as a whole and specifically to society. Building a modern society, strengthening the conscious principle within its social life, introducing people to independence in relation to managing society, and all this along with the ethical responsibility of each individual.
Within the legal framework, administrative, criminal and civil liability operates, 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 desire for further correction). Against this background, moral and legal responsibility are intertwined (the process of an individual's 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 the crimes committed - the main feature of the 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 acted as the equivalent of any statehood.
Gone into being legal lawlessness(human rights and freedoms were not provided or protected by anything). At the moment, society has in its arsenal new methods of legal arrangement of the individual, providing him with confidence in the future.
Syncretism of the concepts under consideration regarding personality
The concept of freedom of the individual affects the philosophical aspect of life. Against this background, a rhetorical question emerges: “Does a person have real freedom, or is everything that he does dictated by social rules and norms within which this individual exists?” First of all, freedom is a conscious choice regarding worldview and behavior. However, society restricts it in every possible way through 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 have asked the question, "How are freedom and responsibility related?" 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 corrects his behavior in accordance with social attitudes, 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 contradictory than subtly harmonious. It would be more correct to say that the freedom and responsibility of the individual are equally complementary and mutually exclusive.
Responsibilities
She happens:
- social;
- moral;
- political;
- historical;
- legal;
- collective;
- personal (individual);
- group.
There are different examples of responsibility. This includes the case when Johnson & Johnson found traces of cyanide in Tylenol capsules and discontinued the product. The total loss in this case amounted to $50 million. Subsequently, the company's management announced that they were taking all possible 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 (if the music sounds very loud after eleven in the evening, administrative responsibility arises, resulting in a fine).
Models of the relationship between man and society
There are only three of them:
- Struggle for freedom (irreconcilable and open conflict between 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 a monastery or withdraws into himself).
Soin the process of understanding how freedom and responsibility are interrelated, human behavior should be taken into account. If an individual is clearly aware of what he is doing a specific action for, and does not try to go against established social norms and rules, then the categories under consideration 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 the responsibility of the individual, and responsibility acts as its guiding stimulus.
The problem of personality within the philosophy of existentialism
This concept from the point of view of existentialism is an end in itself, and the collective in connection with this is only a means of ensuring the possibility of the material existence of the individuals included in it. At the same time, the society is called upon to make available the free spiritual development of each individual, guaranteeing the legal order regarding encroachments on his freedom. However, the role of society is essentially negative, and the freedom offered to the individual is a private manifestation (political, economic freedom, etc.).
Representatives of this philosophy believed that the truefreedom is comprehensible only in the spiritual aspect (opposite to the social one), where individuals are considered as existence, and not 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 the individual's activity into an independent hostile force, as well as the opposition of the state specifically to the person and the entire organization of labor, public institutions, other members of society, etc. n.
Especially deeply this philosophy explores subjective experiences regarding the alienation of the individual from the outside world (for example, a feeling of apathy, indifference, loneliness, fear, etc.).
According to existentialists, a person against his will is placed in this alien world for him, in a certain destiny. In this regard, the individual is constantly worried about questions regarding the meaning of his life, the reason for existence, a niche in the world, choosing his path, etc.
Despite the hypertrophied spiritual origin of a person (irrational), existentialism has made a significant contribution to the development of various philosophical approaches in which a person was perceived as a person, aimed at identifying human essence.
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, indicated the need for a thorough revision of the existingpresent value orientations that guide both society and a person as a person.
Right as a measure of individual freedom and responsibility
It acts as an official measure of the existing freedom, its indicator of the boundaries of the necessary and possible, as well as the norm. In addition, law is a guarantor of the exercise of the freedom in question, a means of its protection and protection. In view of the fact that it is a legitimate scale, law is capable of objectively reflecting the achieved level of social development. In this sense, the category under consideration 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 social responsibility.
The German philosopher F. Hegel considered it as the real existence of such concepts as freedom and responsibility of the individual. Also known are Kant's provisions regarding the fact that law is a sphere of freedom designed to ensure the external autonomy of a single individual. Only the greatest Russian writer L. Tolstoy believed, despite everything, that the right is violence against the individual.
The existing legal norms 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 on the part of other citizens.
Summing up the above, we can conclude that such categories as rights, freedoms andresponsibility of the individual, are closely interconnected: the first is the guarantor of the provision 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 necessarily be free and independent. At this moment, the statement that the freedom and responsibility of the individual are closely interrelated concepts is once again revealed.
The considered subject, performing actions, must clearly understand the possible consequences of them. And the last key point 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 of the action is the accused.
The ethics of responsibility is the moral component of an act. In this regard, the saying is strengthened: "There is no deed - 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, a new concept is needed. It became a non-classical concept. In this regard, now the subject is initially responsible not for his unsuccessful actions in the conditions of the existing organizational structure, but for the successful completion of the work entrusted to him. And here, despite the existing uncertainty, the individual solves the problem through the correct organization of the task assigned (managing the process of its implementation). Now in non-classicalThe concept of responsibility is not connected with the concept of absolute human freedom, but with the functions and norms of a democratic society.
So, if you start to understand how the freedom and responsibility of the subject are interrelated, then first of all it is worth deciding on a specific case for the implementation of these categories. Then it is necessary to establish belonging to a particular concept. As a result, two answers can be obtained: the freedom and responsibility of the individual are united and harmoniously interconnected or, on the contrary, are delimited by accompanying conditions that depend on the prevailing social rules and norms.
