An analysis of the historical types of relations between the individual and society convincingly indicates that in the conditions of the accelerated development of civilization, the role of the individual in society, the level of his freedom increase significantly, in connection with which the problem of the relationship between the freedom of the individual and his responsibility to other people and society becomes more and more urgent. generally.

What is the meaning of the categories "freedom" and "responsibility" and what is the relationship between them?

Freedom is one of the main, most complex philosophical categories that defines the essence of a person, consists of her ability to think and act in accordance with her intentions, desires and interests, and not because of some kind of coercion. From antiquity to the present day, the idea of ​​freedom has been characteristic of almost all developed philosophical systems. Therefore, in a certain sense, philosophy is the doctrine of freedom.

It should be noted that in the history of philosophical thought there were different approaches to the definition of freedom, ways and means of achieving it. So, for example, for most representatives of ancient philosophy - Socrates, Diogenes, Epicurus and Seneca - freedom is the meaning and purpose of human existence. For representatives of medieval scholasticism - Anselm of Canterbury, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas - freedom of mind and actions are possible only within the limits of church dogmas, but outside of them freedom is a heresy, a grave sin. In modern times, the point of view on freedom as a natural state of man, the path to social equality and justice becomes dominant (Thomas Hobbes, Holbach, Pierre Simon Laplace). Representatives of classical German philosophy also paid great attention to the problem of freedom. Immanuel Kant, for example, freely understood the intelligible (i.e., inaccessible to sensory cognition) essence of man; for Johann Gottlieb Fichte, freedom is the only absolute reality; a Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

Hegel understood by freedom a multifaceted reality, in all its manifestations it represents a form of objectification of the absolute spirit.

A significant contribution to the development of this category was made by Benedict Spinoza, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sartre, Karl Jaspers, Nikolai Berdyaev, Vladimir Solovyov, Grigory Skovoroda, Panteleimon Kulish and many other philosophers and thinkers. As you can see, there are really many approaches to the concept of "freedom", and this once again proves that freedom is an extremely complex, multifaceted phenomenon. Which of these approaches could become pivotal in the analysis of the category "freedom"?

According to many researchers, one of the most developed concepts of freedom is the concept of Marxism. In order to better understand the features of the Marxist understanding of freedom in its dialectical interaction with necessity, one should consider the interpretation of freedom from the standpoint of voluntarism and fatalism.

Voluntarism (from Lat. Voluntas - will) is an idealistic trend in philosophy that considers will as the highest principle of being. The prerequisite for modern voluntarism is the ideas of Augustine and John Duns Scott about the superiority of the will over the intellect, as well as the teachings of Kant and Fichte about the primacy of practical reason. As an independent direction, voluntarism was developed by Schopenhauer, for whom freedom is only a blind, unreasonable fundamental principle that dictates its laws to man.

In socio-political practice, voluntarism manifests itself in activity, is not based on the objective laws of historical development, but is guided by the subjective desires of the subjects that carry it out. Acting in the spirit of voluntarism means disregarding historical necessity, the laws of nature and society, and betraying one's own arbitrariness, freedom according to the highest wisdom. So, voluntarism absolutizes freedom and rejects the need for the history of society and the life of an individual. An example of voluntarism can be a political practice from the life of both our country and other countries, for example, the policy of the "Great Leap Forward" (1958-1960) and the "Cultural Revolution" (1966-1976), which brought much suffering to the Chinese people, was carried out by the leadership of Maoist China.

According to the supporters of fatalism (from the Latin Fa tais - fatal), the history of mankind and the life of each person are outlined by fate (mythology and everyday fatalism), God's will (theology), or an inexorable combination of cause-and-effect relationships within a closed 258 causal system (rationalism). Hobbes, Spinoza). Thus, fatalism absolutizes the need for social processes and rejects the freedom of choice. This position reflects the idea that there is no alternative to social processes, and, consequently, the impossibility of changing anything through the efforts of people. Fatalism inevitably leads to the humility of a person before his fate and thereby dooms him to passivity and humility, to the rejection of activities to improve society. It is known from history that fatalism in the form of various occult doctrines (astrology, spiritualism, etc.) becomes most widespread during periods of crisis or transition in the development of society.

The Marxist understanding of freedom in its dialectical interaction necessarily rejects both voluntarism, with its idea of ​​the arbitrariness of human actions, and fatalism, which considers them as predetermined. It is known that in everyday life people are confronted not with abstract necessity, but with its concrete historical embodiment in the form of real-life conditions, social relations, as well as available means to achieve the goal.

People are not able to change the conditions of their lives, but they have a certain freedom of will in choosing goals and ways to achieve them, since at any moment there is usually not one, but several real opportunities for their actions. In addition, they are to a certain extent free to choose the means to achieve the chosen goal. Freedom, therefore, is not absolute, but relative, and turns into life by choosing one or another plan of action. The more clearly people realize their real possibilities, the more means they have to achieve their revenge, the greater their freedom. This is the objective basis of freedom as a phenomenon of human life.

Thus, the choice of an activity option is combined with a great moral and social responsibility for the consequences of this choice. Therefore, real choice differs from arbitrariness in that it is the result of a complex synthesis of the objective possibilities of external reality and the subjective richness of a person’s inner world, his accumulated social experience. In the process of choice, the true meaning, spiritual and moral wealth of the individual is revealed. It is free choice that tests the strength of such personality components as conscience, dignity, honor, responsibility, etc.

So, what is responsibility from the standpoint of social philosophy? Responsibility is a socio-philosophical concept that reflects the objective-historical nature of the relationship between a person

And society, personality and social group, which were formed in the course of meeting mutual requirements. As a rule, depending on the field of activity, political, legal (legal), moral responsibility is distinguished, and depending on the subject of the relevant actions - individual, group, collective, and the like. Responsibility is formed as a result of the requirements that society, a social group, a collective imposes on an individual. Assimilated by a person, they become the basis of the motivation of his behavior. The formation of personality involves cultivating in her a sense of responsibility, which becomes her main feature. Of particular importance is the responsibility for certain activities in transitional societies that are in a state of maximum instability, when even the slightest fluctuations (in this case, they can be the actions of one person) can lead to undesirable social bifurcations.

An important issue for understanding the relationship between freedom and responsibility is the definition of the boundaries of freedom of human activity.

Freedom is a fundamental value for a person, but it must have its own boundaries, boundaries, so as not to become arbitrariness, violence against other people, that is, not to turn into captivity. Thus, outside freedom are the interests of another person, social groups and society as a whole, as well as nature as the natural basis for the existence of society.

In society, individual freedom is limited by the interests of society. However, the desires and interests of a person do not always coincide with the interests of society. In this case, a person under the influence of the laws of society is forced to act, do not violate the interests of society. When the interests of the individual and society coincide in a state of freedom, the concept of "freedom" should be supplemented with the idea of ​​regulating people's activities.

The growth of the degree of freedom of the individual can serve as a criterion of social progress. At different stages of human history, the possibility of free choice of the individual was not the same. With the development of society, with each new era, new opportunities for increasing the degree of freedom of the individual open up. This position in modern social science both in the West and in the East has become universally recognized. Therefore, today the main criterion for social progress is the level of humanization of society, the position of the individual in it - the level of its economic, political, social and spiritual freedom. Each social formation or civilization is progressive to the extent that they expand the range of rights and freedoms of the individual, create conditions for its self-realization. However, one should not forget that freedom can only be a criterion of social progress when its growth occurs within reasonable limits. When these limits at any stage of the development of society are the responsibility of the individual to society and it goes beyond the limits, anarchy inevitably begins in society, which is by no means compatible with the concept of "freedom".

FINDINGS

1. Personality and society are two interrelated, complementary aspects of the way a person assimilates reality. There is no individual without society, and there is no society without individual.

2. In each historical epoch, there is its own type of relationship between the individual and society. The degree of freedom that people invest in each particular era depends on the level of economic development, on social relations and the political system of a particular state.

3. Freedom and responsibility are inseparable concepts. Freedom is impossible without the responsibility and duty of a person to the world in which it exists. Responsibility is the inevitable price of freedom, the payment for it.

One great one said that freedom is a conscious necessity. And there is some truth in this expression. Every self-respecting person strives to gain freedom and knows his rights in the modern world. But, unfortunately, many do not understand that behind freedom there is such an important factor as responsibility. For your actions, thoughts and deeds. How interconnected are these two concepts, and what problems does a person face today in the struggle for his freedom? Let's consider this question in more detail.

The unity of freedom and responsibility of the individual

The concept of human freedom is connected with the philosophical side of life. Today the question has become rhetorical: does a person have real freedom or are all his actions dictated by the norms and rules of the society in which he lives? First of all, freedom is the ability to freely think and act as one wishes. This is a conscious choice of behavior and worldview. However, society limits the possibility of choice by various norms and rules, due to the intention of the harmonious development of man in the entire socio-social system. This is where responsibility arises as the other side of freedom.

There are several types of liability:

• moral, historical, political, legal;
• personal (individual), collective, group.

Freedom of law and responsibility of the individual are interconnected with each other. Responsibility acts as the basis, the inner core of a person. It regulates his moral position, as well as the motivation of his actions and behavior in general. When a person regulates his behavior in accordance with social attitudes, we are talking about such a thing as conscience. However, the combination of freedom and responsibility is more contradictory than harmonious. These concepts are both complementary and mutually exclusive.

The problem of freedom and responsibility of the individual

Back in the 18th century, the relationship between these two concepts was considered by Benedict Spinoza. The dialectic of freedom and responsibility of the individual, according to his reasoning, boiled down to the fact that responsibility is a necessity, and where there is a need, there can be no freedom. Spinoza also argued that man, as part of nature, is always subject to necessity, but in order to remain free at the same time, man, as the only thinking being, must cognize the world around him and be aware of his existence. Thus, a person cannot change the laws of nature and the course of time, but by organizing his activities, relying on them, he can rise above these laws and gain dominance over the surrounding reality. However, this approach to the combination of freedom and responsibility of the individual is not accepted by everyone. Therefore, there are several models of the relationship between man and society:

• the struggle for freedom is an open and irreconcilable conflict between man and society;
• adaptation to the surrounding world - a person voluntarily obeys the laws of nature and the surrounding reality, sacrificing his desire to become free;
• flight from the world - behavior in which a person, being unable to find freedom in society, goes "into himself" or goes to a monastery.

Personal self-realization, freedom and responsibility interact harmoniously only if a person is aware of the motives of his activity and does not go against the rules and norms established in society. Personality can be realized only when it fully uses freedom as the right to choose. The higher the chosen life goal, the better the means of achieving it will correspond to the laws of development of the surrounding reality. Responsibility, in turn, is associated with the need to choose the means and methods by which the goal will be achieved. Thus, freedom contributes to the emergence of responsibility of the individual, and responsibility is the guiding stimulus of freedom.

The freedom of a person in society is his ability to make a free and informed choice. Freedom is not just to do whatever a person wants, it is the ability to consciously choose the line of one's behavior, including on the basis of social norms. Freedom is now understood not as "freedom from", but as "freedom for". It is impossible to live in society and be free from it. Since man is a social being, the social relations he enters into are for him an environment for the manifestation of freedom. It is in these relations that human freedom manifests itself. But freedom cannot be absolute, because the boundaries of the freedom of one person is the freedom of another, which must not be violated.

Freedom is where a person has the right to free choice. It is the choice that implies the right of a person to determine the line of his behavior that is the main responsibility. You cannot be held responsible for someone else's choice or mandatory behavior in the absence of a choice. Thus, freedom, free choice, on the one hand, and responsibility, on the other, are two sides of human and social life.

Responsibility is the ability of a person to be aware of the nature of actions committed by his own choice; subjective obligation to be responsible for actions and actions, as well as their consequences; a certain level of negative consequences for the subject in case of violation of the established requirements. Responsibility is the most important regulator of human behavior. Awareness of responsibility for committed actions can protect a person from immoral, immoral and illegal actions.

According to the criterion of carriers, responsibility can be divided into:
- individual (personal) - the responsibility of one person;
- group - the responsibility of a group of people;
- collective - the responsibility of a large team of people, an entire company, etc.

As society develops, the level of freedom increases. Responsibility also increases, since it is inextricably linked with freedom. The direction of responsibility is gradually shifting from collective to individual. So, if in the Middle Ages the role of one person was small, his freedom was also limited, responsibility was mainly collective - i.e. the responsibility of the collective (community members, urban society, etc.). Today, in the conditions of recognition of the rights and freedoms of everyone, responsibility is mainly of an individual nature.

According to the criterion of essence, the following types of responsibility can be distinguished:
- legal responsibility - carried out on the basis of the law;
- moral responsibility - is carried out on the basis of moral norms;
- social responsibility - responsibility to society as a whole;
- moral responsibility - responsibility based on one's own moral attitudes.

Other types of liability may also be identified.

moral freedom is an a value that a person aspires to achieve and the possession of which is for him good . However, at the same time, she condition for the manifestation of his morality, committing moral deeds and actions.

There are a number of problems in understanding the essence of moral freedom.

The problem of the relationship between freedom and necessity , for which there are two opposing points of view fatalism and voluntarism. ethical fatalism, absolutizing necessity, puts a person in complete - fatal dependence on objective circumstances. Therefore man not single in his actions: his whole life is predetermined, he is not able to change anything in it, but he does not bear any responsibility for his actions. ethical voluntarism, on the contrary, it denies all necessity and affirms that man absolutely free in his moral decisions and must act only in accordance with his own will. This understanding of freedom leads to the complete rejection of moral norms and the approval of arbitrariness. But freedom is impossible without restrictions: the presence of restrictions is a necessary condition for the freedom of everyone. Therefore, the justification of arbitrariness is nothing but the denial of freedom. Thus, both the fatalist and the voluntarist conceptions ultimately deny moral freedom.

The best understanding is necessity as a moral law. The main features of this law are its reasonableness and expediency. It does not create moral obligations, but is addressed to the mind of the subject, calling on a person to discover these obligations in existing values. This law does not require automatic obedience, it does not deprive a person of moral independence. He only teaches to distinguish between good and evil. Therefore, he is not a law-prescription, he is law of liberty, giving a person the right to choose Good and follow it. This is the way free moral initiative, which does not fall into the field of direct prohibitions or debt. moral law is a call for self-realization, giving a person the opportunity for moral development, which is based on freedom -behavior that depends on one's own actions, consciousness and will of the individual.

The problem of moral choice who speaks form manifestations of freedom and provided mind andwill . Every decision is made first mind , preparing the ground for free choice, which implemented by an informedwill: it is she who moves the mind, prescribing it to make decisions, although the mind provides the will with appropriate ends and means of choice.

Choice isfree when all the intellectual and volitional abilities of the individual are connected to it. It is limited and not free when the place of reason is occupied by feelings of fear or duty caused by external coercion or arbitrariness, and the will of the individual is difficult contradictions between I want, I can and I must.

moral freedom - not just a choice of behaviors, but the transformation of moral requirements into internal needs, into human convictions. moral freedom is manifested in the ability to 1) make a conscious moral choice actions and deeds, 2) give them moral assessment, 3) anticipate them effects, 4) exercise reasonable control over their behavior, feelings, passions, desires.

The problem of the dual nature of freedom. Freedom has two aspects: negative and positive. negative freedom - This "freedom from" freedom, negative, destructive addiction "from" - from the forces of nature, social and moral dogmas and attitudes. Such freedom brings a person independence and at the same time - a feeling of loneliness, powerlessness, anxiety. Under these conditions, a person again faces a choice: either to get rid of this freedom with the help of a new dependence, a new subordination, or to grow up to positive freedom.

positive freedom - "freedom for" enabling the full realization of intellectual and emotional abilities, requiring this realization from the individual, freedom based on the uniqueness and individuality of each person.

Thus, before modern man, who has gained freedom (in the "old", negative sense), two paths open up. The first is a further movement towards a “new”, positive freedom, the main ways of achieving it are love and creativity. Second way - "escape" from this true freedom.

Problem moral responsibility of the individual manifests itself as the reverse side of a freely made decision, as natural consequence of freedom choice. To be free, to be independent means to be responsible. Freedom and responsibility are directly related: the wider the freedom, the greater the responsibility. There are different kinds and different measure

Types of responsibility determined by who / what and for what a person is responsible. In this sense, we can distinguish:

• - responsibility of a person to himself;
• - responsibility of a person for his specific actions and deeds to other people;
• - the responsibility of a person to the world and humanity, manifested as care about the world, caused anxiety about him.

measure of moral responsibility different people in different situations is not the same. It depends on a number of circumstances:

from independence the action taken, and the presence of coercion and even a threat to personal safety does not relieve the person of responsibility;

From significance the act committed for the fate of other people (in an extreme situation, when people's lives may depend on the decision taken, the measure of responsibility is much higher than in normal times);

from scale decisions made, depending on whether it is about the fate of an individual enterprise or the fate of the state;

Moral freedom- a value that a person strives to achieve and the possession of which is good for him. Moral freedom is the transformation of moral requirements into the internal needs and beliefs of a person.

Moral freedom is manifested in the ability to:

1) make a conscious moral choice of actions and deeds; 2) give them a moral assessment,

3) to foresee their consequences, 4) to exercise reasonable control over their behavior, feelings, passions, desires.

Moral freedom is the ability of the subject to acquire power over his actions.

The choice is 1. free when molar demands merge with its internal needs, 2. It is limited and not free when the place of reason is occupied by feelings of fear or duty caused by external coercion or arbitrariness, and the will of the individual is hampered by contradictions between I want, I can and I must.

Freedom has two aspects: negative and positive. Negative freedom is “freedom from”, freedom that denies, destroying the dependence “from” - from the forces of nature. Positive freedom is “freedom for”, which enables the full realization of intellectual and emotional abilities.

Moral responsibility- is the ability of a person to independently manage their activities, to be responsible for their actions. To be free, to be independent means to be responsible. Freedom and responsibility are directly related: the wider the freedom, the greater the responsibility.

Types of responsibility are determined by who / what and for what a person is responsible. It could be:

Responsibility to oneself;

Responsibility for specific actions and deeds to other people;

Responsibility to the world and humanity, manifested and concern for the world, caused by anxiety about it.

8. Duty and obligation. Shame and conscience.

Duty is a moral task that a person formulates for himself on the basis of moral requirements addressed to everyone. This is a personal task of a particular person in a particular situation.

Duty can be social: patriotic, military, doctor's duty, judge's duty, investigator's duty, etc. Personal duty: parental, filial, marital, comradely, etc.

DUTY(moral) - a moral requirement when it acts as a duty of a person, as a task assigned to him. In contrast to the category of debt, the concept of debt, on the one hand, is more general, since it formulates requirements that apply equally to many people, and on the other hand, it is more specific, since it reveals the content of the prescribed a person of actions (what exactly he should do). The duty of a person is to fulfill certain O. The latter provide for a variety of actions depending on the sphere of human life to which they belong (family, social, labor O.); their implementation becomes a duty in certain situations, in which a person finds himself. Only on the basis of the fulfillment by all people of the moral obligations that lie on them is it possible for the coordinated action of all links of the social organism and the maintenance of a certain social discipline. And vice versa, neglect of one's own principles leads to the undermining of this discipline, to the fall of the authority of moral requirements, and contributes to the development of an atmosphere of connivance with evil and impunity, mutual distrust between people. Therefore, the moral duty of each individual person is not only to fulfill moral requirements when the socially beneficial consequences of this are obvious, but also to contribute to the strict fulfillment of the O. lying on him, the assertion and strengthening of those moral principles that he professes.

Shame and conscience

Conscience- this is the consciousness and sense of moral responsibility of a person for his behavior, serving him as a guide in choosing actions and a source of a line of life behavior. That is why conscience acts as an internal regulator.

Shame is one of the types of moral consciousness that affects the emotional life. A person has a natural tendency to experience a sense of embarrassment caused by the denunciation of some immoral act. This is the fear of losing respect in the eyes of those before whom a person has dropped his dignity.

Shame- the ability of a person to weigh his actions and thoughts in accordance with conscience.

In contrast to conscience, S. has a more external character: a person evaluates his actions here from the point of view of how others treat them or could treat them. S.'s feeling is an integral property of the personality.