Freedom and responsibility - Times of India
Mar 8, Which do you want? Freedom is the ability to set your schedule, to decide on the work you do, to make decisions. Responsibility is being held. Knowing that we have this great potential, we naturally aspire to freedom. But freedom comes with responsibilities. Many people in the West are very proud to. Jan 2, Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think 'whatever' one wants but this ' whatever' is a dynamic word. Everyone might have their own definition of.
People would ask, "Why do you do this? These are seasonal flower seeds. I may not come back on this route again, but that does not matter. When the season comes and the flowers will blossom, thousands of people who pass every day in this line of railway trains will see those flowers, those colours. They will not know me. That does not matter. I am making a few people happy somewhere. That much i know. It does not matter whether they know it or not. What matters is that i have been doing something which will make somebody happy.
Some children may come and pluck a few flowers and go home. Some lovers may come and make garlands for each other.
And without their knowing, i will be part of their love. Internal freedom or free will It is the choice that the individual makes when deciding with self-determination between good and bad. Freedom of action or external action It is the freedom of action, without impediments or physical, social, cultural, economic or legal constraints. What is the responsibility? The DRAE also defines responsibility in two senses.
In response to an unlawful conduct, which would be"debt, obligation to repair and satisfy, by itself or by another person, as a result of a crime, fault or other legal cause.
This circle is composed of the person himself, his family, the social group or work and society.
What is the Relationship between Freedom and Responsibility? | Life Persona
Freedom and responsibility As we can see, the concepts of freedom and responsibility are closely related. For a person to be responsible for his actions, it is indispensable that he can have freedom of action, with no limitations other than his own conscience and moral values. Therefore, it is considered that the mentally ill, children, and animals are not responsible for their actions, because they do not have full consciousness or lack the use of reason.
The Irish writer George Bernard Shaw summed up the relationship of both concepts of life in one sentence: Fused, through reflection, with other apprehensiveness, or susceptibility to the rights of others, which is the essence of responsibility, which in turn is the sole ultimate guarantee of social order. The Two Senses of Freedom. It signifies freedom from subjection to the will and control of others; exemption from bondage; release from servitude; capacity to act without being exposed to direct obstructions or interferences form others.
It means a clear road, cleared of impediments, for action. It contrasts with the limitations of prisoner, slave, and serf, who have to carry out the will of others. The latter requires 1 positive control of the resources necessary to carry purposes into effect, possession of the means to satisfy desires; and 2 mental equipment with the trained powers of initiative and reflection requisite for free preference and for circumspect and far-seeing desires.
The freedom of an agent who is merely released from direct external obstructions is formal and empty. If he is without resources of personal skill, without control of the tools of achievement, he must inevitable lend himself to carrying out the directions and ideas of others.
If he has not powers of deliberation and invention, he must pick up his ideas casually and superficially from the suggestions of his environment and appropriate the notions which the interests of some class insinuate into his mind.
If he have not powers of intelligent self-control, he will be in bondage to appetite, enslaved to routine, imprisoned within the monotonous round of an imagery flowing from illiberal interests, broken only by wild forays into the illicit.
A particular individual at a given time is possessed of certain secured resources in execution and certain formed habits of desire and reflection. In so far, he is positively free.
Freedom Within Limits Of Responsibility
Legally, his sphere of activity may be very much wider. The laws, the prevailing body of rules which define existing institutions, would protect him in exercising claims and powers far beyond those which he can actually put forth.
He is exempt from interference in travel, in reading, in hearing music, in pursuing scientific research.
But if he has neither material means nor mental cultivation to enjoy these legal possibilities, mere exemption means little or nothing. It does, however, create a moral demand that the practical limitations which hem him in should be removed; that practical conditions should be afforded which will enable him effectively to take advantage of the opportunities formally open.
Similarly, at any given time, the liabilities to which an individual is actually held come far short of the accountability to which the more conscientious members of society hold themselves. The morale of the individual is in advance of the formulated morality, or legality, of the community. Relation of Legal to Moral. It is only as men are held liable that they become responsible; even the conscientious man, however much in some respects his demands upon himself exceed those which would be enforced against him by others, still needs in other respects to have his unconscious partiality and presumption steadied by the requirements of others.
He needs to have his judgment balanced against crankiness, narrowness, or fanaticism, by reference to the sanity of the common standard of his times. It is only as men are exempt from external obstruction that they become aware of the possibilities, and are awakened to demand and strive to obtain more positive freedom. Or, again, it is the possession by the more favored individuals in society of an effectual freedom to do and to enjoy things with respect to which the masses have only a formal and legal freedom, that arouses a sense of inequity, and that stirs the social judgment and will to such reforms of law, of administration and economic conditions as will transform the empty freedom of the less favored individuals into constructive realities.
These are termed rights. Any right includes within itself in intimate unity the individual and social aspects of activity upon which we have been insisting.
As a capacity for exercise of power, it resides in and proceeds from some special agent, some individual. As exemption from restraint, a secured release from obstruction, it indicates at least the permission and sufferance of society, a tacit social assent and confirmation; while any more positive and energetic effort on the part of the community to guarantee and safeguard it, indicates an active acknowledgment on the part of society that the free exercise by individuals of the power in question is positively in its own interest.
Thus a right, individual in residence, is social in origin and intent. The social factor in rights is made explicit in the demand that the power in question be exercised in certain ways.
A right is never a claim to a wholesale, indefinite activity, but to a defined activity; to one carried on, that is, under certain conditions. This limitation constitutes the obligatory phases of every right. The individual is free; yes, that is his right.
But he is free to act only according to certain regular and established conditions.
What is the relationship between freedom and responsibility?
That is the obligation imposed upon him. He has a right to use public roads, but he is obliged to turn in a certain way.Myles Munroe - The Responsibility of Freedom (Azusa '94) - Full Video
He has a right to use his property, but he is obliged to pay taxes, to pay debts, not to harm others in its use, and so on. Correspondence of Rights and Obligations. This is true both in their external employment and in their intrinsic natures. Externally the individual is under obligation to use his right in a way which does not interfere with the rights of others.
He is free to drive on the public highways, but not to exceed a certain speed, and on condition that he turns to right or left as the public order requires. He is entitled to the land which he has bought, but this possession is subject to conditions of public registration and taxation. He may use his property, but not so that it menaces others or becomes a nuisance.
Absolute rights, if we mean by absolute those not relative to any social order and hence exempt from any social restriction, there are none. But rights correspond even more intrinsically to obligations.