Freedom and responsibility as a unity of contradictions

Freedom and responsibility - what is the meaning of these concepts? Freedom itself is a fairly broad definition of both the possibilities of man and the philosophical canon on which more than one treatise of the Athenian sages is based. To be free is to dispose of yourself exactly to the extent that it is possible to do this in a particular person. But at the same time, it's hard not to get confused in the definitions, trying to distinguish the characteristics of "freedom from" and "freedom for".

The first forms the space of complete anarchy, releasing the animal's beginning of man and the desire for chaos. The second characteristic, on the contrary, implies freedom, enshrined in many legal documents. It allows you to use the inalienable rights received from birth without violating the personal space of other people. Thus, if the first definition is chaotic and does not accept systematics, then the second implies the conditional responsibility of the individual for his deeds, thoughts and deeds.

But the issue of the topic under discussion today is freedom and responsibility, and therefore, giving the first definition, it follows that the second one should be derived from it. Responsibility, in the narrow sense of the word, implies the possibilities limited by law and morality of man to be responsible for the committed acts. But if the legal characteristic is more or less clear, then what about morality? Freedom and responsibility in the moral and ethical sense are inseparable, dependent on each other concepts. And, accordingly, each person possesses them, regardless of their legal capacity, legal capacity and other legal aspects. Morality is a much broader sphere of scope, if only because, unlike the law, it treats a person from within, giving a full characterization to all the deeds that have been accomplished or not, within the limits of the possibilities for his self-awareness.

It immediately becomes clear that the topic of the issue under consideration is heterogeneous and ambiguous. After all, freedom and responsibility, generating each other, are philosophically mutually exclusive concepts.

For example, a policeman, pursuing an armed criminal and protecting his and others' lives, has the full right to kill him and thus does not go beyond the rights granted him by law.

But by the same action this policeman crosses the line of permissible influence on the freedom of the murdered person, which means, in the moral plan, it exceeds even those limits of what is permitted by society to him. At the same time, from the point of view of the same society, the policeman will be right. If the persecutor, defending himself, is killed by the guardian of the law, then this murder is regarded by society as an aggravating circumstance and exceeding the rights of the murderer in relation to the victim ...

I want to note that freedom and responsibility must be inseparable not only within the framework of the law and conscience of man. The meaning of these concepts, their correct understanding, should be instilled by parents and educational institutions from the very moment of the birth of a person and his becoming as a person. Otherwise, "being free" will be equivalent to him "to succumb to anarchy," and responsibility will be only a cage, which will inevitably lead to deviant behavior of a person and will pose a threat not only for him, but for the society as a whole.