freedom demands responsibility essay brainly

Philosophy and Relationship between Freedom and Responsibility Essay

Introduction, what is freedom and responsibility in philosophy, relationship between responsibility and freedom, sartre: freedom and responsibility, works cited.

As a human being, it is hard to make a decision because of the uncertainty of the outcome, but it is definitely essential for human being to understand clearly the concept and connection between freedom and responsibility to recognize the existence of human being and it is only by the process of existence that somebody realizes or defines himself.

• A person may acquire freedom, but he has not fulfilled responsibility and this may keep grief inside him.
• Sartre asserted that complete responsibility should not be believed as resignation, but it is just the necessary condition of the outcomes of the freedom.
• Freedom is attained if a person accepts responsibility since responsibility and freedom possess a symbiotic connection in philosophy.
• A man attains his essence by personal selections and activities and it is only by the process of existence that somebody realizes or defines himself.
• The meaning of the expression that existence precedes essence is that, to start with, there is existence of man, develops, emerges on the scene, and, just eventually, defines his identity.
• The first clear value that Socrates declares concerning a society is justice and truth.

Freedom and responsibility play a crucial part in determining our decisions in life. As a human being, it is hard to make a decision because of the uncertainty of the outcome, but it is definitely essential for human being to understand clearly the concept and connection between freedom and responsibility to recognize the existence of human being and it is only by the process of existence that somebody realizes or defines himself.

Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand and if a person does not want to assume responsibility, perhaps, he will not have freedom since the two ideas accompany each other. If a person avoids responsibility, he will eventually undergo slavery directly or indirectly.

Some people can dream about freedom without considering that different responsibilities will accompany their freedom. A person may acquire freedom, but he has not fulfilled responsibility and this may keep grief inside him. Everybody can remove completely this grief through accepting both the responsibility and freedom.

Sartre stated, “the essential consequence of our earlier remarks is that man being condemned to be free carries the weight of the whole world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and himself as a way of being” (Sartre 52).

Thoreau (375) stated that the essence of freedom should be also similar in God and to the people, and this shows that every human being has a freedom of indifference.

Additionally, Sartre (98) asserted that complete responsibility should not be believed as resignation, but it is just the necessary condition of the outcomes of the freedom. Sartre does not agree on the existence of inclination or taste, permitting just “choices of being,” although this insufficient inspirational description does not allow someone of his responsibility.

Man can be uninformed about all his selections, but they are owned by him even so. Sartre praises the idea of responsibility; even though he permits that it concurrently attacks and frees man (Sartre 98). Thoreau states, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived” (Thoreau 116).

This means that by going to the Walden, he showed that he is free to make that decision, but also had to assume responsibility and find all the essentials in life as consequences.

Freedom is attained if a person accepts responsibility since responsibility and freedom possess a symbiotic connection in philosophy. In line with Sartre, every person is basically free and is free to create choices and initiate since there are no previous morals narrow their personal perception.

As free creators, people are responsible for every component for themselves, including emotions, actions, perception, and more importantly, people are free to decide. According to Sartre, “one may choose anything if it is on the grounds of free involvement” (Sartre 48).

Even though all people are free to decide their fate, they should, as well, accept responsibility for their decisions. Personal freedom of perception, hence, is both a curse and a blessing, and it is a blessing since it provides humanity the reward of free will to form a person’s life and the universe. It permits somebody to make an individual kind of values without certain limitations or restrictions.

According to Socrates, virtue and wisdom have close relationship, so his hard work provides to develop society altogether. In line with the perception of Socrates, if human beings are bright, nobody will ever do wrong, and their wisdom will result to healthier and more satisfying life.

Therefore, the philosopher, in accordance with Sartre, does not simply follow conceptual intellectual paths for the benefit of pleasure, but is dedicated in practices of the greatest moral value.

There are no specific reasons for judging a certain action good or bad, or right or wrong, nor are there any reasons for concluding that a change is moral setback or moral advancement. Sartre explains that existence precedes essence, which addresses that freedom and responsibility relative to human decisions or selections.

Only through action and choice do values form, for “value is nothing else, but the meaning that you choose” (Sartre 49). This notion signifies that human being, together with human reality, is in existence before any impression of morals and values.

Therefore, because no preformed essence or implication about the meaning of ‘being human,’ people should create their personal idea of existence through stating responsibility for and control of their activities and decisions.

As a result, a man attains his essence by personal selections and activities and it is only by the process of existence that somebody realizes or defines himself. Whether a person will die or live due to their decisions should be secondary in their decision making and they should simply ask if their actions are wrong or right, or bad or good (Cooper 26).

Sartre said: “in any case, what is that by existentialism we mean a doctrine which makes human life possible and, in addition, declares that every truth and every action implies a human setting and a human subjectivity” (Sartre 10).

Normally, people put focus on the dark side of human life and rarely put the emphasis on the positive side and consider existentialism as anything unattractive. This is the reason people are considered naturalist.

The close relationship between freedom and responsibility informs us about the value of philosophical life. This is demonstrated when Sartre states that if there is no existence of God, at least another being exists in whom existence precedes essence and a human being that was present before may be identified through whichever concept, and this existing being is considered a man.

The meaning of the expression that existence precedes essence is that, to start with, there is existence of man, develops, emerges on the scene, and, just eventually, defines his identity. Just eventually, he will be something, a man himself will have created what he has defined himself to be and this shows that human nature does not exist since God does not exist to conceive it.

Through daily living, everybody is engaging endlessly in the process of forming themselves or one’s identity. With nonexistence of any previous moral principle to adhere to, man has the basic freedom to make their personal system of beliefs and this personal freedom of perception is accompanied with the load of responsibility for the selections and decisions somebody creates.

Every human being should be responsible for the choices they create and if somebody does not accept responsibility for the actions and choices he or she makes, one will be operating in bad faith, a kind of self-deception that results to sense of forlornness, anguish, despair, and anxiety.

The first clear value that Socrates declares concerning a society is justice and truth since he reveals this in the initial step of his defense, which shows these as essential values for him (Cooper 17).

He presented clearly that he does not undervalue justice and truth, and consider them as important elements of nationality and society.

Therefore, citizens might be believed to be ‘good’ in his perception if they adhere to the good value of justice and truth in their community, particularly as Socrates performs during the court proceeding. All through his life, Socrates administered that the unexamined life does not merit questioning whatever thing.

In conclusion, it can be established that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand and if a person makes a choice, he or she must assume the responsibilities that accompany the choices made.

Freedom is achieved if a person accepts the responsibility and it is considered that a man is responsible for all elements for themselves, which contain the ability to make choices and do anything. Through daily living, everybody is engaging endlessly in the process of forming themselves or one’s identity.

Nevertheless, even when operating in bad faith, one is creating the selection of shunning responsibility, and it demonstrates that everybody cannot shun choice that helps them recall the fact that the destiny of a man is within himself. Freedom is also a curse since the responsibility of structuring somebody’s life is accompanied with freedom to decide.

Cooper, John. Plato: The Trial and Death of Socrates. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000. Print.

Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Human Emotions: Selections from Being and Nothingness. New York: Citadel, 1957. Print.

Thoreau, Henry. Walden; Or, Life in the Woods. New York: Sterling Publishing Company, 2009. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 12). Philosophy and Relationship between Freedom and Responsibility Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-and-responsibility-2/

"Philosophy and Relationship between Freedom and Responsibility Essay." IvyPanda , 12 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-and-responsibility-2/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Philosophy and Relationship between Freedom and Responsibility Essay'. 12 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Philosophy and Relationship between Freedom and Responsibility Essay." December 12, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-and-responsibility-2/.

1. IvyPanda . "Philosophy and Relationship between Freedom and Responsibility Essay." December 12, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-and-responsibility-2/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Philosophy and Relationship between Freedom and Responsibility Essay." December 12, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/freedom-and-responsibility-2/.

• "Existence Precedes Essence" a Term by Sartre
• Sartre's Philosophy of Existentialism
• Sartre on Human Condition
• Sartre’s Argument ‘Existence Precedes Essence’
• Concepts of Sartre’s “Existentialism Is a Humanism”
• Jean-Paul Sartre's Views on Freedom
• Jean Paul Sartre: Bad Faith Concept
• Nietzsche’s and Sartre’s Views on Morality
• Philosophical movement
• Relationship Between Body and Consciousness by Jean-Paul Sartre
• Human Freedom as Contextual Deliberation
• Freedom and Determinism
• Susan Wolf’s Philosophy
• Rousseau and Kant on their respective accounts of freedom and right
• Inconsistency of the Compatibilist

Wise & Shine

We exist to help people understand themselves..

Why Freedom Demands Responsibility

“The principle of freedom must be our first commitment, for without this no one is immune against the virus of aggrandizement – the impulse to grab power, wealth, position, or reputation at the expense of others.”  –  HERBERT DOUGLASS  –  SOURCE: THE COST OF FREEDOM

True freedom is a commitment to experiencing the very real limitations of our choices . 

We will always have to live with some sort of, ‘what if I had…’ We will always have to mourn the limitless possibilities we didn’t pursue. If we had no choice about our life we’d simply get on with it, but because we do, we live in constant fear of making the wrong one.

That’s the price we pay for the freedom of choice. 

We have to live with the consequences of our actions. We have to live in the knowledge we could have done things differently. To know we could have done things better. 

I wonder if many of us don’t actually want the level of responsibility that comes with having to choose our own fate? Perhaps this is why so many of us prefer to be told what to do? Perhaps this is why so many of us choose not to think for ourselves? 

It’s too uncomfortable. 

We don’t want to take responsibility for our life. We didn’t have to as children so why should we now?

Many recent decisions we’ve made in the “free” parts of this world demonstrate an unwillingness to take on this fundamental aspect of freedom. We follow the herd because it’s easier. We follow the herd because that’s what our parents taught us to do. 

I imagine that living in a society where your thoughts and actions are decided for you is in some ways easier. You don’t have to think about what to do. When your survival depends on the actions that the state has demanded, you just do. So you become another brain washed cog in the totalitarian machine. Just as your dictator ordered. There’s a nice little cog. 

The sad truth about such a life is you still have responsibilities. They’re just not your own. 

You cannot escape responsibility.

Many of us falsely belief that freedom comes with the freedom not to have any responsibilities.  How we love to have our cake and eat it too! We say, ‘if only I choose the right leader then I’ll be able to achieve financial independence free from having to try at anything.’

Delusion is a word. 

Delusion is what’s sold to you by populists who promise the world free of charge. They promise you the things that only you can deliver for yourself. 

There’s a huge price that comes with freedom, incalculable in fact – millions have died for it – but I believe the rewards justify it. Yes the possibility of failure is real, but so is the possibility of achieving greatness. We should remember that humans don’t flourish under the conditions of compulsion – we flourish under the conditions of free co-operation.

It’s hard to shift through the noise of course. It’s extremely hard in fact. To do the research required to figure out what your own opinions are on matters that affect us all. The rewards are not that you’ll have a leader you want or a country that reflects the values you hold. 

You probably won’t. 

The reward is actually greater than that.  The reward is that you get to know who you truly are.  This is something your country and the world needs more than your vote. What we need is a diversity of unique voices speaking for themselves. What we don’t need is a tribe of mindless people echoing only the thoughts of one man. 

Don’t be so quick to throw your freedom under the bus for someone else. 

It’s important to remember that no two voices are the same. Freedom respects that fact. We should be extremely wary of those who seek to limit the voices of others. We should take the time to listen to what our own heart has to say. We should put in the effort to form our own opinions. We should honour them with the choices we  get  to make. 

I read a quote recently by  Niklas Göke  from his persuasive article  Responsibility Is Freedom  that said,

“Freedom is not about shedding your responsibilities, it’s about choosing them.”

I would go a step further and say that  freedom demands we choose our responsibilities.  The same way that having a life demands we protect it. If you want freedom of choice then you have to choose to take responsibility for your life. If you don’t someone else will choose your responsibilities for you. The danger is they will use that for their own profit and power by forming a narrative you refused to take responsibility for forming yourself. In doing so they will shut your mind from your heart. The moment that happens, you’ve lost your freedom.

Thank you all for taking the time to read. If you’re not too busy lining up at the polls, I’m interested in getting your thoughts. What do you think about the relationship between freedom and responsibility? Have we taken our freedoms for granted in the Western world? Is this why we find it under threat? Do you even believe it is under threat? Or do you think that freedom has nothing to do with responsibility? As always I welcome ALL opinions and thoughts. This is very much a free state.

You can visit AP2’s personal blog here at:  https://clear-air-turbulence.com

Share this:

51 thoughts on “ why freedom demands responsibility ”.

Thank you very much for this post! I agree and to get some kind of justice we all would want to have for ourselves as well, we should speak and stand up for others as well. Because it is of course easy (for some) to speak for themselves. But when there would be someone in need, unable to speak for themselves, it should be a normal thing to do, to speak up for them as well and defend, support and help them (up). I mean if you would get beaten down by a group of bullies or a gang, you would also want that someone rescues you, at least usually. So why not be the one or many to do that for someone else who is in such a situation right now. Often people look away, are afraid to speak up and take action. Because, as you mentioned, they don’t want to take responsibility for their life and related actions.

And yep… I also was one of these people too many times, out of the fear and resignation related to my own life and how I felt unheard and misunderstood, while others were allowed to judge, manipulate and torture me (mostly psychologically/mentally). Simple words and actions can often cause a lot more harm than expected, because for one self they might not be that hard to do or seem not too harmful. But the one who has to then handle all of this might feel in another way and could be deeply hurt or changed by these things. And what is possible in a bad way, could also be good and cheer someone up, simple words and actions. Just a friendly emotion, word and sign, can move and change and cheer up, more than thousands of laws and smiles and hearts, when there is nothing behind it or it is all just ignored. As usual: Someone else will take care of it. But then who is this “someone”? No one knows for sure, as long as everything “works”, no one asks questions or takes action.

I count myself in on that, although I asked questions a lot, but sadly at the wrong time or the wrong people and sometimes just to myself. Fear is really a powerful thing. But it consumes us all or did for the past years, especially this year. And everyone was kind of scared at least.

Thank you for these honest words! Stay safe and true! <3 <3

Thank you for sharing your thoughts – I’m really glad you liked it. I agree. I took my freedoms for granted for most of my life but the last 5 years have woken me up to why I can no longer afford to do that. Standing up for the marginalised is very much in line with standing up for the values of freedom. Respect and honesty must be the values we look for in our leaders for exactly this reason. Hate crimes have been on rise and people are scared to have a political opinion different to others in the “free” world. It’s tragic. Fear is often the bugbear that prevents us from doing what we know is right. I live in Hong Kong – have done most of my life – and seen first hand how the erosion of freedom rots the soul of a place. I live with that fear – it’s one of the reasons why I write under the pseudonym AP2 – to protect my family. But not fighting at all is not an option. I have to remind myself that millions died for the freedoms I’ve enjoyed my whole life and now they are under threat. For our generation the time has never been more pressing to take responsibility for the gifts previous generations gave their life for.

I’ve suffered under the weight of bullying too. It’s actually what drove me into years of depression. Small acts of kindness and love are never small for someone suffering under the weight of depression. Right now the world needs as much as it get it hands on.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and making me think more deeply. I wish you, strength and peace in the days ahead. All the best, AP2 🙏

Thank you for your long and open message. I also hope that you are alright, although still in fear as you wrote. But given that you wrote to me about it, might have shown that you aren’t as afraid as you thought. But I know what you mean, about all those who died for what we have now. This is why I just had to write about things, go beyond any “thought logic” or whatever others made me believe in and think. I really hope that more and more people wake up like us and maybe soon than we both can imagine. This year gave most of us, at least those who had a more or less “good” life the final kick. I have already seen many examples and creative ways. Thank you a lot! I can imagine it wasn’t that easy to write this to me or at least not without some emotions involved. In my case I just write out of these emotions this whole year. Although I can’t always express them in a way others understand, it was better than doing nothing. And so far this hope, this rope I got my hands on, was not letting me down. 🙏 Stay safe and don’t give up! <3

Thanks friend. It’s important to express and process your emotions- Wishing you well 🙏

AP, as a young person, I was sick of being micro-managed. Thinking about it a few years later, I came to realize the truth of the statement, “If you don’t want to be governed, govern yourself!” This year, the following statement seemed to fit the situation, “If you don’t vote, don’t complain about the outcome.” I truly believe that taking responsibility brings freedom. Thank you so much, AP for this wise and thoughtful post!

I think we all go through some kind of similar attitude toward our employers at some point in our lives. As you say, If you don’t like something take responsibility for that by making changes. I often think the more responsibility you take on in life the more freedom is afforded to you – even offered to you. I definitely think there is a strong correlation between the two. Thanks Cheryl. I appreciate the debate. And spot on about the ‘don’t vote don’t complain mentality’

What if you don’t like either out come when it comes to voting? Example…the USA election. Is Biden really better than Trump? Biden may not be an egotistical psychopath, but most of Biden’s beliefs and political platform disagree with a lot of Americans. I may be a liberal Canadian, but I have lived in the states long enough to have a feeling there is a lot they disagree with the left. Though some may truly support Biden, a lot don’t and just voting for him because by a little smudge he may be the lesser of two evils. That doesn’t make it right though. Voting in countries like the USA that has fallen way too far into a S***t hole, doesn’t do anything because it needs a revolution. I think if I could vote I wouldn’t because I admit defeat to the two horrible choices they forced on me. I think any citizen of any country has a right to complain and be unhappy rather they vote or not as long as they are involved in other ways patriotically. You are not a patriot because you vote or are born in a country by chance, not by choice. I like to think rather it is how hard you speak up for your rights, beliefs and how much you are involved in keeping your country on the right track. If Americans don’t like the options (which trust me a lot of them don’t) stand up and fight. Or just roll over again and we will see if it gets better in the next 4 years. The choices are getting worse so I wouldn’t hold my breath.

That is just an example ;o

Thank you so much for your input. With the greatest respect I have to disagree. Politics is not about choosing your ideal candidate – it is about choosing the lesser of two evils, however hard it is – even if it is only by a smidgen. I believe it’s essential you put in the hard yards and really examine the facts to find out exactly where you stand on all the matters that affect us today and then decided accordingly. My feeling is millions died for the right to vote – we should honour them by doing so. Trumps voter suppression and disinformation campaigns are aimed at generating exactly this kind of sentiment and it’s heart breaking as an outsider looking in to see. That aside the way I see it Biden is in orders of magnitude a better choice for the people of America and the world then Trump is. I believe in honesty. I believe in fact. I believe in science. I believe in human decency and respect. I believe in equality. I believe in freedom. Voting is a way to stand up and fight for those things. I’ll add that as a pilot I like my aeroplanes to be flown by pilots, not politicians. Biden isn’t going to set the world alight but I posit that good governance should be boring. It shouldn’t be a reality TV show. It should be about listening to professionals regarding their respective fields which he is willing to do far more of than Trump. If I catch COVID I’m going to see a doctor not ask Trumps advice on how to deal with it. His actions have cost thousands their lives. That alone is enough for Biden to get my vote. I agree that the political system in the states is broken – I dislike 2 party democracies because it forces you to choose a side that is either black or white when there is only grey. But Trump is a threat to even allowing Americans that choice in the future. As a man who has seen first hand what robbing citizens freedoms does to a place – living here in Hong Kong – let me tell you I would give my left arm to have America’s political system in place here right now. I agree we need to fight for radical changes to the political systems in many modern democracies – the states especially- but we need to do that so we can save them. Not voting is definitely not the way to do that. That’s a form of indifference and silence. In my eyes it’s a form of shirking responsibility. The point of my most is that exactly this attitude is what will and is hurting our freedoms the most. Voting is the very foundation of what it means to live in democratic society. You gotta get out and cast your ballot. Just my 2 cents worth and listen, I completely respect your opinions and thoughts. I’m merely voicing mine. And I’ll finish by saying that it takes courage to speak your mind. To have the debate. To not live in our own political bubbles. We need the conversation above else. So we can all move that little bit closer together. I wish you well friend. Thanks for stopping by and adding to the debate. 🙏

You are free to disagree with my opinion…after all we still have some freedoms right? Even if it is voicing your opinion on a blog post meaningless. I respect you for not jumping down my throat for having a difference of opinion. Most political opinions end up in arguments at some point, it is just a matter of how constructive they are or if they don’t get nasty.

I have to disagree politely…You as American citizens should have better choices. Saying picking the lesser of two evils and that is just the way it is not good enough. Your country was founded on it will be run by the people and I am reminded on a very regular basis just how free this country is. Well I don’t believe Americans are running their country anymore and when it comes to freedoms most of what we base freedoms off of Americans fall far down the list including freedom of the press. Though Canada my home country when it comes to things like politics etc can just be as shady at times and messy…I had more personal freedoms than Americans have in their country. I had this argument with a coworker the other day and her response was ‘Go to China and see how free they are’ comparing your country to the Middle East or some communist dictatorship country is not an acceptable answer nor should you accept that because before the states fell..and yes they have and they continue too they were suppose to be the example for the world, Of just how great a country can be and how free it can be. But the more powerful they got, so did their government. You don’t have to take guns away to start a dictatorship, in fact that was one of the last things Hitler did. And sure you can say I am Canadian and I have no knowledge of a country I grew up beside and as the world power were far more exposed than any other news I heard about. I get along great with Americans I do and I LOVE your people, but your country right now is very broken. It is actually a very scary place. I even fear for my life after this election is over. A country this divided in a time where you need to be uniting against not just your government but the world’s most powerful governments and corporations is not a good thing. Trump has already came out with his delusional dribble of he has already won when Biden was leading last time I checked, and his party of yahoos is already looking into things like ‘illegal and shady shit going on’ when I was listening on the news I couldn’t even comprehend most of it all I got was Trump is going to throw a tantrum if he loses and not leave office peacefully. Even if there is some shady styff going on…then what? He will get his supporters in more of a up roar than they need to be. You know you shouldn’t even be saying shit like you won before the election is even close to over or being counted….yet we let this yahoo won office for 4 years. Guess he can’t leave without making one last childish remark? The funny thing is some people (outside of the states) actually believed him. I read on twitter people in a up roar about how Trump won and it’s like official. I am like guys votes are still being counted and Biden is leading. I haven’t looked recently as I need a break from the craziness, but yeah.

Biden is not the lesser of two evils…he is just another puppet. Biden can say how much he loves his country and the people the same dribble every president chants especially in their campaigning. We will see how much he cares when he actually takes office. I expect big changes and if not….Good luck? Let’s just wait another 4 years maybe next time you guys can choose between a dog and a cat…At this point if I was American I would little mail in a ballot voting for my 3 month old kitten saying she would be much better than an China Ass kissing, Delusional to think Americans actually are gonna give up their guns or be for ‘gun safety’ higher taxes old fart and a delusional egotistical psychopath who was never even a successful businessman. It at least would get some laughs? No? Fake ballot 😛 I debated on doing it even as a Canadian Citizen like why not?

Voting in a way yes is but not when they force two terrible choices on you. The thing is you guys get no say in who gets to be a candidate. They choose for you. It is absorb to think voting for two almost equally crap candidates is freedom or the means of a democratical society. No. Who told you this? This is not what America was built on I promise you. The USA is walking on thin ice. It is hitting a breaking point. Americans are fed up…so if they choose to exercise their rights and push back….the government will have to accept it or get ready for a revolution. I have had very concerning and good discussions with Americans and they are very fed up and tired. Some of them who are very involved with their country and very intelligent, but cannot bring themselves to vote anymore because it is not doing anything.

Corporations has their money in presidental candidates pockets before they take office…yet somehow presidents run a county? Corporations run America now. But my point is it USE to not be this way. Americans need to get their country back. Lying down and accepting the lesser of two evils should no longer be an option.

I just re-read my comment….perhaps I was a bit harsh and for coming? So before you go all sideways at me trust me I have spent time in your country and before that the disadvantage of being the world super power your country and it”s politics has been exposed more than anyone else’s. So you have that kinda against you. I do not hate the states (I use to be very anti American as an angry know it all teenager and didn’t know nothing about anything…yeah I admit it) I was all like eff America, Canada is better. LOL. It’s not btw. Like anything it depends where you go too. It also depends on how you like living, your needs, or what not. Both countries have their stereotypes and most are not true about either. Although Canadians do secretly fight each other with hockey sticks when no one is watching as we pretend to be the most peaceful and nicest nation. Jk jk.

If you noticed something in my comment…I don’t think Biden is the right choice for the populous of the USA because of his far left beliefs. I am a leftist, can be labeled as a socialist, liberal whatever you wish to label me as….I believe Health Care, food and shelter is a basic right to every human being. I don’t even believe we need to pay for it in taxes. Our governments can afford all this shit for us free of charge. USA could have national health care and very well afford it much like Canada and it would be successful. USA should probably stricten their gun laws as a SHORT term solution until they get their gun violence somewhat more under control. It would not stop it full stop, but it is a quick fix to lessen it than what it is now. I obviously know better than to think gun safety is going to save us from gun violence. It will not…There is a combination of reasons for gun violence and why it is so rapid in the states that stem far deeper than as simple as Americans have too many guns and lacksadasicle rules. Some include poverty, ignorant and lazy parenting (meaning a government should not have to tell you to keep your guns away from children or angst teenagers especially if you have raised them to be a piece of crap) but in this country it seems they may have too. So better parenting is yes a better solution. Raise those kids and keep an eye on them. Pay attention to what is going on in their personal lives etc. That will stop school shootings. Paying attention to are you raising a sociopath etc….you get the point? I also cringe when Americans tell me “I have a gun because my neighbor has a gun’ I cringe when I hear people making jokes about trespassing and shooting people. Some are not joking. More guns is not the answer to peace. Why and how someone walked into that movie theater dressed like they were ready to go to war was also questionable. Knives can kill people yes….but automatic weapons can kill a lot more people. Why are they legal? Do you seriously need semi automatic or machine gun to kill someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night or to go kill a deer? Just the mess alone…YES I question the second amendment. But that is not my point. My point is the second amendment is there for a reason. Americans have far different beliefs than what I have and I respect those Americans for embracing and having those beliefs. So why are they all of a sudden rolling over and voting for a guy who is against all this shit? The Democratical party failed this campaign when they failed to give a message on how they plan to keep Americans safe. They also failed to share how they will get American jobs back unless we want to go work in China sweatshops tbh. If people want to know why some people still voted for Trump and did last election is because his message was what Americans want to hear. ‘I will keep Americans safe, I will get your jobs back and we will make America Great again’ or some chant. Democrats have actually failed for years to get such message across. Almost like they can’t swallow their pride or know a strategy to do any of the above. I am all for national health care, but guess what? Most Americans are not and are very against higher taxes. Americans don’t believe ib saving a bum on the street or a poverished child. I do because I just believe it is a basic human right. I don’t expect anyone to agree with my beliefs. It is why I am so confused in why we are going with Biden. Further more…Obama tried a better health care system and it failed because the white house is so fucking confused in who is in control and the deal got changed and passed around a million times before it was accepted to leave office that it didn’t even make sense anymore and that is why it is failed. It did not fail because Obama did. Obama was complacent enough to let other parties and those involved make a deal. What we saw from Obamacare was not at all what Obama actually had visioned. Again because Americans don’t want nationalize health care and those that do are few and far between. The USA is not a democratic al country, it is a republic. I may have been raised differently but that does not mean I have the right to storm into your country and question your insane gun laws or anything else just because I disagree with them or fail to understand them. My husband is a gun supporter, especially in these dire times in the states and we entirely disagree on such topics. It makes for great dinner discussions. xD But Americans have a right to believe what they believe in.

I was actually surprised that in my opinion Obama was the last decent president that gained the respect from both sides in a long time. He was not liked at first, but over time people grew a liking for him. Some of it was though he was a great spokesperson. Even then…Obama was tied to a lot of shady shit, but least he wasn’t entirely evil or deranged. Plus he was nice to listen to. 🙂

Hey friend. I’m not going to get all sideways on you. Nothing about what you have to say makes me angry. They are just opinions. The same way nothing I say should make you angry. They are just my opinions. And no – don’t ever think you shouldn’t speak up or not voice your opinion. You are welcome here. 100%. I hope you can see that I’m interested in having the conversation- a dialogue – a respectful debate. What I’m not trying to have is an argument. In my eyes that only serves to strengthen respective positions and deepen the divide. None of us need that right now. Anyway I completely understand your frustration with the system- we all do. I’m simply saying, as my post tries to make the point, that we need to fight for those changes. We need to fight for our freedoms. We need to take responsibility for them or we may lose them. One way to do that is to get out there and vote but it’s certainly not the only way. Getting out there and protesting or campaigning for the changes and the people you believe in. All good stuff. But sitting on the sidelines and complaining achieves nothing except to fuel anger, mistrust and hatred. Trust me – I’ve been there and done that! You need to harness that anger and use that to make changes yourself. Live with purpose. Be the change you want to see.

That aside if you can’t see why a man like Trump – the first President in America’s history who is currently trying to subvert the Democratic process – if you can’t see how truly dangerous that is – how much of an attack on people’s freedoms that is – why he absolutely needs to be removed from power ASAP – at least as a start before moving on and then working out how we change the system – then I don’t think I’ll ever be able to get you to see that. So long as you have the right to exercise your choice you must. Because if you don’t you may will lose it altogether and the system could get a whole lot worse. This is exactly what Trump is trying to do. This is bigger than simply disliking Biden. It’s about protecting the freedoms that millions have died for. And let me tell you, they are all turning in their graves right now. Anyway friend I’ve said my peace.

Let me finishing by saying I agree with much of what you have to say. I also believe in universal health care. I also believe everyone should have a roof over their head and food on their plates. I also believe America needs much stricter gun control laws. Biden stands for all these things and has plans for them. It surprises me that you don’t think he does, but he’s not the problem. It’s the system. A 2 party democracy where each side is dedicated to subverting the progress of the other is why nothing gets done. It’s a massive problem. But as a start – We need to get Trump out the house. He knows little else but how to destroy things, including peoples freedoms. I genuinely wish you well friend. And I really appreciate you speaking up and sharing your opinions. Take it easy 🙏

I completely agree with you.

What I meant was voting is not the the only way to get involved. That I understand people’s frustrations with the choices and why they don’t want to vote or see no result from it. That doesn’t mean these people are not getting involved in other ways and are truly fighting for what they believe in. Such as like you suggested campaigning, protesting and speaking up. They are not just sitting on the sidelines complaining, they are just fed up with voting.

I am not sure if I confused you, but I want Trump out of office myself as well ASAP. I never liked or supported Trump, I was appalled when he won 4 years ago and debated if I wanted to immigrate to this country or not regardless if it was cheaper or where my husband lived. I was honestly afraid for the public when he won.

Biden is not that much better of a choice and some of the things he stands for goes against some of the popular opinions or beliefs, but he is not a delusional egotistical psychopath. I have just never been fooled enough to believe these presidents have Americans best interest at heart, although they may have at times there are times they have to answer to other organizations that disagree with the public’s best interest…such as corporations.

Biden winning is a quick fix, but not a solution I guess is how I would put it. A desperate attempt or last ditch effort to get Trump out of office, but it is certainly better than keeping Trump in power.

Yes the steps to change are going to be tough and as citizens they must continue to protest, campaign, speak up, continued to be involved in anyway they can and never back down. The government needs to know enough is enough. No more dividing the people with silly bs distractions, no more brain washing or lies. The people have had enough. It’s good, but scary all at the same time. I truly hear the passion and fire when I speak to people here. It makes me angry for them. I wish I could help, but no one takes me seriously because I was not born here. However, if this country can get their shit together soon I am considering going for citizenship I just have to live here for 3 more years I think or so. Then I have to pass a test that probably a lot of AMericans may not even be able to pass. xD I will make sure to study even more of your countries history and do my homework. I like learning anyways. I just have a really bad memory and I don’t test very well. Never have even in school. But going for it will secure a life even more so for me and my husband, and I will have more rights here especially if I want to consider my future here.

If USA does not get their shit together however, my husband has already said he will move to Canada. He lived in Canada for a few years with me before I immigrated here and he loves it. He misses it. He as in Canada when Trump won, I remember waking up to the news. His response was “Thankfully I am not home right now.” insert some curse words though. LOL. He didn’t vote though because he was in Canada at the time so I told him he couldn’t complain too much. I am like you are like all those Americans who didn’t bother voting for Hilary thinking it is impossible for her to win. Anyone who did not vote that election was a vote for Trump unfortunetely. Which is why like you said it can yes be important to vote even if you don’t like either choice. What I meant really was Americans deserve better than to just have to pick between the lesser of two evils.

I agree with you on a lot of points, and I believe we can see eye to eye. I don’t want to argue either and much enjoy discussions. 🙂 Take care of yourself and stay safe.

Thanks so much friend. I understand your point of view completely and thank you for remaking civil in all of this. I wanted to say – to get off politics – my wife is Canadian and I love the country. It’s far from the worst backup in the world! Wishing you well 🙏

Really sorry about that..hope you have a good future ahead

That’s very true, as much here in the UK as it is in the US. It’s so much easier blaming others for our problems instead of deciding we can fix them. I also agree that we have so many different voices and needs and it’s easy to blame without understanding that there are many needs for our neighbours in this world. Realising we have to work with others so we don’t dismiss or crush them is also a responsibility of freedom, and perhaps the hardest.

Absolutely. As a rule for life I say give up blaming. So long as we look to take the moral high ground – to talk from our high horse of righteousness we are part of the problem not the solution. Listening to others is a skill that seems to have suffered in the modern age of distraction- we are all hurt by it. So long as we maintain an us verses them mentality instead of looking at our current predicament as OURS. As in WE did this, not them, whoever it is you voted for, I think we will have issues. The sooner we can think as a collective the better. The world is only growing smaller and more interconnected. It’s no longer good enough to be a proud American or Englishman or Chinese man or Republican or Democrat or Liberal or whatever it it’s anymore – we need to be proud of our common humanity first and foremost. Thanks for stopping and sharing friend. Wishing you well 🙏

It is easy to place blame on others than ourselves. The USA is what it is today because they have accepted it and are complacent. Back in the day, countries revolutionized when they disagreed with stuff. Look back in history and how even people just stood up and fought for their rights for things like a right to vote etc….Sure it may be bloody. There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution, but I do know one thing some countries need one. The USA especially, the citizens keep saying they are fed up with the government, the election today is not even their ideal candidates….so how long will they remain complacent? Instead of dividing, they should be joining forces and revolutionizing. That is just my thoughts though. You don’t see the fire or passion in people anymore like we did before. We are too busy being distracted by things like social media, as our world is becoming a very toxic and scary place to live in.

Interesting perspective. I agree that complacency has definitely had a role to play. But wars and revolutions have often taken place because of desperation and necessity – because others have sought to deny them their freedoms. I think it’s too simplistic to say people simply stood up and fought. I don’t believe a bloody revolution is necessary to implement the changes we need but I fear if we don’t, then bloodshed may well result. Regarding passion – what I see is an increasingly united youth that is willing to fight for their future and the changes required. This has been born of necessity. That passion and spirit you talk of is growing. I believe big changes are coming as a result whether those in power like it or not. It’s their resistance to these changes that will sadly hurt us all the most. Historically periods of massive change has always been marked by hostility. The very increase of which we are seeing today. But those changes have still happened. I believe we need to start embracing our future, not live in fear of it. Doing so means embracing these changes. Anyway it’s getting late here. Thanks for making me think again. I welcome the dialogue. Wishing you well, AP2 🙏

You also have a fair point. I hear the passion and spirit when I talk with people from all countries including the states and back in my home country Canada. Changes are coming, I just hope it is not going to be a bloody revolution, I just fear the worse.

Call me paranoid, but immigrating here was cheaper and all…BUT my husband and I are working on an escape plan if all shit hits the fan fast. He honestly I think regretting coming back to the states even as an American. I more just miss my family, politics aside I just love Canada more because that is where I grew up. You know? As liberal as they are and free health care is great in Canada, nothing is free at the end of the day. Canada is very expensive. You should have seen me the first time I went just grocery shopping in the states never mind for anything like electronics. Everything is so cheap here, even living is relatively cheaper depending on the area. I want to not just go back to Canada, but to one of the most expensive provinces where I spent my teen years and early twenties, British Columbia. Lol.

This election kinda speaks for itself that something needs to change fast. The polls are so close because I feel people honestly didn’t really know who to vote for. When Biden is winning states that have not voted Democrat in many years, something is up. I am more scared what will come after especially with it being this close. I was more afraid of how it would happen more so than who would win. If Trump has a shred of doubt this election was illegal or some suspicious activity is going on, even if he has to slightly make some of it up he will. Will he spark riots in those who support him? A country this divided in votes is so scary on it’s own. Either Trump never should have won last election….Even Republicans are going against their own beliefs saying as much as they disagree with Biden defunding police, or messing with the second amendment and higher taxes…they’d rather that over Trump again. That or this country is that divided 50/50 and that is very scary. This is just talking election…My opinion stems far deeper than some puppet who really doesn’t run the show and hasn’t in quite some time. I am not sure where you are from? In Canada corporations cannot pay or make deals with candidates before they take office as prime minister. In USA…corporations do make very shady deals and pay for campaigns before a president is even elected. Corporations is what runs America. The USA was founded on to be run by the people and throughout the years that somehow got lost. Now Corporations and Governments run the people. I am sure that is not just happening in the USA though. They gotta get their country back. I think it could be peaceful, but you have to get the government and other higher ups to see the same views. I just don’t see it budging anytime soon. When Biden was chosen as the best candidate to represent the Democrats my heart sunk. I thought Obama was the last decent president in recent years, and though democrat he had the support of both sides. People did not like him at first, but over time the support for him grew. If Obama had all the power and no ties to corporations or other deals that had to be made in the white house, I think he could have been a lot more successful. A lot of his platforms were effed with. Obamacare I know for a fact was changed a few times before getting the support to leave office. It was not his entire idea and that is why it was so broken. But Biden….No. When Obama won I believe it was the second time around the republicans were a mess, Mitt Romney was a joke. I feared the same this election and was a little shocked to see numbers rise for Biden. I guess I wasn’t all that crazy about thinking Trump is a delusional egotistical psychopath. I didn’t believe one could be that bad. That maybe somehow it was just my lack of judgement. But if we knew he was such a crazy dude, why did he win last election? Did Americans just want to sit back and watch the entertainment? Like yeah sure let’s see what happens…what is the worse that could happen. That and the lack of votes as well. Every person who said Hilary wouldn’t win and therefor why bother voting was a vote for Trump.

All this aside, let’s hope for peace after this election because if some crazy shit happens I am moving my butt back to Canada with my liberal friendly neighbors who apologize when they disagree with each other. Jokes we are not that nice, but yeah you get my point. 🙂

I agree with you that changes are coming, it is just a matter of how those changes will come.

Hi, AP2, and glad you jumped on in to posting, and what an interesting subject! Freedom and responsibility feel to me like two sides of the same coin, but perhaps I am in the minority (again, alas). One of my favorite playboys of the Western World was Benjamin Franklin, who wrote in one of his Poor Richard Almanacs when speaking of responsibility versus freedom, that freedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of the cudgel. This might be applied to all so-called freedoms, as they all require the prudence to acknowledge the consequences of uncontrolled expression thereof. All of them carry the shadow of the cudgel, which really does sound like the name of a metal band. The consequences of anything now seem to either lack teeth to make a difference, or are so cataclysmic that to pursue said freedom would be the act of a suicidal maniac. All or nothing? Does age make a difference here? Perhaps the old are cynical and the youth are feeling hopeless, and who could blame either of them? I suspect I am teetering on Overthinking, agghhh!

Er…I think I got off on a tangent there, sorry! 😀

Ha no problem – I believe this is the whole premise of PO! I love the dialogue and thank you for making me think. I actually wrote this one a while back but wanted to share with readers here on PO today of all days. Something to think about while lining up to vote right?

I had to look up cudgel to know what it means. Love the word! I think that maybe people mistake freedom with entitlement. Like I’m entitled to believe that global warming is a hoax and continue on my path of blind destruction. But that is the exact opposite of what it means to take responsibility for your actions and I would posit – as a result – is exactly that kind of behaviour that is eroding our freedoms. If not our own then our children’s, which is worse.

It’s a great point that freedom requires understanding the consequences of our actions. It does. It’s exactly why I believe honesty must be the gold standard by which we measure our leaders. If people believe it’s ok to do whatever they want they will.

But I’m not sure about the all or nothing debate. I believe in grassroots movements – I think these things change the world. We shouldn’t expect the change to come from the top – it won’t. It will come from our children and their shared sense of responsibility to each other and this world. This will be what buys them more freedom in the future.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I enjoy the chat! Wishing you strength and peace in the days ahead, AP2 🙏

This is a great piece. Thank you for posting. I am a huge believer in personal accountability and not giving my power away to others. I am always surprised when people look toward leaders to essentially be parental. How can they expect to live a happy life unless they take responsibility for their actions meaning they are responsible for their successes AND their failures(opportunities for learning). Great read on and incredibly appropriate today. Thanks!!

Absolutely- couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately I feel like many of these people will never take on those responsibilities and always feel the need for a leader to dictate their narrative. Right now they need a leader (parent) to teach them about the fable of the boy who cried wolf. (Or in this case maybe it’s the boy who cried no wolf). Thanks Danielle. I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I wrote it a while back but thought today would be a good to share it here on PO! Side-note – I like the way you look at failure as learning opportunities.

I love everything about this post. I love the quotes. I understand the desire to give up responsibility. I refuse to exchange the pain of responsibility for my freedom of choices and it’s consequences. It’s how I learn. It’s how I create. It’s how I know I’m growing.

Thank you Angie. That means a lot. The desire is very much to sit on the couch and binge watch NETFLIX 😂 – but as you point out, this kind of behaviour ultimately restricts your own freedoms down the line. I wish you strength and peace in the days ahead 🙏

I shared your blog post on my page… I think there are many of us who feel the same… we just are not the ones making all the noise! … to busy working, living, creating, being in the world and in our communities!

Thank you Angie. I’m flattered you shared my thoughts. Living your life is the most important thing. Being part of something. Being part of a community. We must live our lives today. Stay present for it. It’s easy to get sidetracked into politics and world problems out of our control. Each moment is precious and deserves our full attention. Wishing you well, AP2 🙏

• Pingback: Why Freedom Demands Responsibility

“I wonder if many of us don’t actually want the level of responsibility that comes with having to choose our own fate? Perhaps this is why so many of us prefer to be told what to do? Perhaps this is why so many of us choose not to think for ourselves? It’s too uncomfortable.”

I feel compelled to answer these questions, that need no answer at all…. I would actually ask not ” …IF many of us…” but “…WHY many of us….”. The relationship between freedom of choices and being accountable and responsible for the results is very direct. And as the results are not always certain, it is easier to give away the freedom to external structures (employer, society, government, church, science…) that have become entities on their own, powerful and almost untouchable. So, WHY are we so afraid even of mere idea of being uncomfortable, no matter if it´s about choices and the results of those choices or getting wet in the rain? (I notice that people are withdrawing when it comes to the possibility being uncomfortable even a little bit also on the level of being exposed to a bit of rain or physical exercise.) Why are we so afraid all together? And why don´t more people use their own head?

Why do we need a structure to have power over us in order to feel better/ safer/ calmer/ stronger? Why are we afraid to feel the rain on our faces of be out of breath?

Leaders knew this 2000+ years ago; “Panem et Circensus” being an example of it. So, what did change…? Nothing as long as there´s netflix and chips 😉

I enjoyed reading this post, felt good to see there are like minded people; be less alone in my observations of the world, as I see the same things for years now.

Should anyone be interested in some inspiring pages on this subject, I recommend Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm, here some quotes to get you started https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1542935-escape-from-freedom

Excellent points well raised – I try to bring up topics of conversations that are difficult to think about for this reason. The deeper levels of happiness and meaning that so many of us are desperate for comes from confronting the struggles in front of them, not avoiding them. So long as we run away from shame for the sake of our pride – to protect our egos, we will always have big problems. Comfort is most definitely the enemy of growth. Thank you leaving you well reasoned thoughts – I’ll be sure to look into that book. 🙏

thank you 🙂

• Pingback: Why Freedom Demands Responsibility – gr8fulnursecom

such a thought provoking post…i’d say Freedom is about not being forced and yet being responsible and choosing wisely…

Thank you. I’m glad you thought so. 🙏

• Pingback: Why Freedom Demands Responsibility – Katalyst Cog West
• Pingback: Why Freedom Demands Responsibility – Chipota Donald Chipili

It’s really amazing here…I am in need of a producer from every part of the world to produce me from scratch and I promise he will have a share of his sweat on me…

This reminds me of the distinction made by Erich Fromm on freedom from (negative) and freedom to(positive)

“Man, the more he gains freedom in the sense of emerging from the original oneness with man and nature and the more he becomes an “individual,” has no choice but to unite himself with the world in the spontaneity of love and productive work or else to seek a kind of security by such ties with the world as destroy his freedom and the integrity of his individual self.”

Amazing quote. Thank you for sharing 🙏

Amazing post … Thanks for sharing

Thank you. You’re welcome 🙏

Please check my blog posts whenever you have time … New to blogging, hence any kind of support will be appreciated 🙂 Cheers.

• Pingback: Why Freedom Demands Responsibility – Site Title

When it comes to working for someone else, I like to know what I’m doing and the end point I’m working towards. Hence, management positions in a corporate environment very much aren’t my thing. I had such a position for six months and felt like I was floundering most of the time I was in it.

However, when it comes to writing fiction and music, I enjoy pursuing new ideas and seeing how far I can take them. I am by no means the most radical writer or musician, but I know I like the freedom to choose the ideas that I put down on paper. The difficulty here is finding a way to make a living out of it. Not necessarily by earning money, but being able to live while doing more of these lifegiving activities than other, less mentally encouraging activities.

Thank you for sharing and encouraging the sharing of thoughts.

Some people work for the money. Others for the status. Some for power. I work for freedom – so I can do the things I want to. I once heard a quote, “Do the things you have to so you can do the things you want to.” As a general rule – the harder you work, the more responsibility you take on – the more freedoms that are afforded to you later on. Cheers Hamish. Thanks for sharing your thoughts 🙏

• Pingback: Should Vaccinations Be Mandatory? - Pointless Overthinking

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Published by

Hi! I'm AP2. Author, Aviator, Amazing father. Expert in stalling. I combine lessons in aviation with modern psychology to help people navigate life. View all posts by AP2

Discover more from Wise & Shine

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

William H. Miller III Department of Philosophy

Freedom and responsibility.

• Hilary Bok (author)
• Princeton University Press , 1998
• Purchase Online

Can we reconcile the idea that we are free and responsible agents with the idea that what we do is determined according to natural laws? For centuries, philosophers have tried in different ways to show that we can. Hilary Bok takes a fresh approach here, as she seeks to show that the two ideas are compatible by drawing on the distinction between practical and theoretical reasoning.

Bok argues that when we engage in practical reasoning—the kind that involves asking “what should I do?” and sifting through alternatives to find the most justifiable course of action—we have reason to hold ourselves responsible for what we do. But when we engage in theoretical reasoning–searching for causal explanations of events—we have no reason to apply concepts like freedom and responsibility. Bok contends that libertarians’ arguments against “compatibilist” justifications of moral responsibility fail because they describe human actions only from the standpoint of theoretical reasoning. To establish this claim, she examines which conceptions of freedom of the will and moral responsibility are relevant to practical reasoning and shows that these conceptions are not vulnerable to many objections that libertarians have directed against compatibilists. Bok concludes that the truth or falsity of the claim that we are free and responsible agents in the sense those conceptions spell out is ultimately independent of deterministic accounts of the causes of human actions.

Clearly written and powerfully argued,  Freedom and Responsibility  is a major addition to current debate about some of philosophy’s oldest and deepest questions.

Responsibility and Freedom

• Political Culture
• Rights and Liberties

No study questions

No related resources

RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM

The more comprehensive and diversified the social order, the greater the responsibility and the freedom of the individual. His freedom is the greater, because the more numerous are the effective stimuli to action, and the more varied and the more certain the ways in which he may fulfill his powers. His responsibility is greater because there are more demands for considering the consequences of his acts; and more agencies for bringing home to him the recognition of consequences which affect not merely more persons individually, but which also influence the more remote and hidden social ties.

Liability. –Freedom and responsibility have a relatively superficial and negative meaning and a relatively positive central meaning. In its external aspect, responsibility is liability . An agent is free to act; yes, but–. He must stand the consequences, the disagreeable as well as the pleasant, the social as well as the physical. He may do a given act, but if so, let him look out. His act is a matter that concerns others as well as himself, and they will prove their concern by calling him to account; and if he cannot give a satisfactory and credible account of his intention, subject him to correction. Each community and organization informs its members what it regards as obnoxious, and serves notice upon them that they have to answer if they offend. The individual then is (1) likely or liable to have to explain and justify his behavior, and is (2) liable or open to suffering consequent upon inability to make his explanation acceptable.

Positive Responsibility. –In this way the individual is made aware of the stake the community has in his behavior; and is afforded an opportunity to take that interest into account in directing his desires and making his plans. If he does so, he is a responsible person. The agent who does not take to heart the concern which others show that they have in his conduct, will note his liability only as an evil to which he is exposed, and will take it into consideration only to see how to escape or evade it. But one whose point of view is sympathetic and reasonable will recognize the justice of the community interest in his performances; and will recognize the value to him of the instruction contained in its assertions of its interest. Such an one responds, answers, to the social demands made; he is not merely called to answer. He holds himself responsible for the consequences of his acts; he does not wait to be held liable by others. When society looks for responsible workmen, teachers, doctors, it does not mean merely those whom it may call to account; it can do that in any case. It wants men and women who habitually form their purposes after consideration of the social consequences of their execution. Dislike of disapprobation, fear of penalty, play a part in generating this responsive habit; but fear, operating directly, occasions only cunning or servility. 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. –In its external aspect, freedom is negative and formal. 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.

Effective Freedom. –Exemption from restraint and from interference with overt action is only a condition, though an absolutely indispensable one, of effective freedom. 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.

Legal and Moral. –Positive responsibility and freedom may be regarded as moral, while liability and exemption are legal and political. 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. 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, however, absurd to separate the legal and the ideal aspects of freedom from one another. 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.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

The Individual and Social Rights and Obligations.

–That which, taken at large or in a lump, is called freedom breaks up in detail into a number of specific, concrete abilities to act in particular ways. 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. 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. 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. –Rights and obligations are thus strictly correlative. 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. The right is itself a social outcome: it is the individual’s in so far as he is himself a social member not merely physically, but in his habits of thought and feeling. He is under obligation to use his rights in social ways. The more we emphasize the free right of an individual to his property, the more we emphasize what society has done for him: the avenues it has opened to him for acquiring; the safeguards it has put about him for keeping; the wealth achieved by others which he may acquire by exchanges themselves socially buttressed. So far as an individual’s own merits are concerned these opportunities and protections are unearned increments, no matter what credit he may deserve for initiative and industry and foresight in using them. The only fundamental anarchy is that which regards rights as private monopolies, ignoring their social origin and intent.

Classes of Rights and Obligations. –We may discuss freedom and responsibility with respect to the social organization which secures and enforces them; or from the standpoint of the individual who exercises and acknowledges them. From the latter standpoint, rights are conveniently treated as physical and mental: not that the physical and mental can be separated, but that emphasis may fall primarily on control of the conditions required to execute ideas and intentions, or upon the control of the conditions required to execute ideas and intentions, or upon the control of the conditions involved in their personal formation and choice. From the standpoint of the public order, rights and duties are civil and political. We shall consider them in the next chapter in connection with the organization of society in the State. Here we consider rights as inhering in an individual in virtue of his membership in society.

I. Physical Rights. –These are the rights to the free unharmed possession of the body (the rights to life and limb), exemption from homicidal attack, from assault and battery, and from conditions that threaten health in more obscure ways; and positively, the right to free movement of the body, to use its members for any legitimate purpose, and the right to unhindered locomotion. Without the exemption, there is no security in life, no assurance; only a life of constant fear and uncertainty, of loss of limb, of injury from others and of death. Without some positive assurance, there is no chance of carrying ideas into effect. Even if sound and healthy and extremely protected, a man lives a slave or prisoner. Right to the control and use of physical conditions of life takes effect then in property rights, command of the natural tools and materials which are requisite to the maintenance of the body in a due state of health and to an effective and competent use of the person’s powers. These physical rights to life, limb, and property are so basic to all achievement and capability that they have frequently been termed “natural rights.” They are so fundamental to the existence of personality that their insecurity or infringement is a direct menace to the social welfare. The struggle for human liberty and human responsibility has accordingly been more acute at this than at any other point. Roughly speaking, the history of personal liberty is the history of the efforts which have safeguarded the security of life and property and which have emancipated bodily movement from subjection to the will of others.

Unsolved Problems: War and Punishment.–While history marks great advance, especially in the last four or five centuries, as to the negative aspect of freedom or release from direct and overt tyranny, much remains undone on the positive side. It is at this point of free physical control that all conflicts of rights concentrate themselves. While the limitation by war of the right to life may be cited as evidence fro the fact that even this right is not absolute but is socially conditioned, yet that kind of correspondence between individual activity and social well-being which exacts exposure to destruction as its measure, is too suggestive of the tribal morality in which the savage shows his social nature by participation in a blood feud, to be satisfactory. Social organization is clearly defective when its constituent portions are so set at odds with one another as to demand from individuals their death as their best service to the community. While one may cite capital punishment to enforce, as if in large type, the fact that the individual holds even his right to life subject to the social welfare, the moral works the other way to underline the failure of society to socialize its members, and its tendency to put undesirable results out of sight and mind rather than to face responsibility for causes. The same limitation is seen in methods of imprisonment, which, while supposed to be protective rather than vindictive, recognize only in a few and sporadic cases that the sole sure protection of society is through education and correction of individual character, not by mere physical isolation under harsh conditions.

Security of Life.–In civilized countries the blood feud, infanticide, putting to death the economically useless and the aged, have been abolished. Legalized slavery, serfdom, the subjection of the rights of wife and child to the will of husband and father, have been done away with. But many modern industries are conducted with more reference to financial gain than to life, and the annual roll of killed, injured, and diseased in factory and railway practically equals the list of dead and wounded in a modern war. Most of these accidents are preventable. The willingness of parents on one side and of employers on the other, conjoined with the indifference of the general public, makes child-labor an effective substitute for exposure of children and other methods of infanticide practiced by savage tribes. Agitation for old-age pensions shows that faithful service to society for a lifetime is still inadequate to secure a prosperous old age.

Charity and Poverty.–Society provides assistance and remedial measures, poorhouses, asylums, hospitals. The exceedingly poor are a public charge, supported by taxes as well as by alms. Individuals are not supposed to die from starvation nor to suffer without any relief or assistance from physical defects and disease. So far, there is growth in positive provision for the right to live. But the very necessity for such extensive remedial measures shows serious defects farther back. It raises the question of social reponsibility for the causes of such wholesale poverty and widespread misery. Taken in conjunction with the idleness and display of the congested rich, it raises the question how far we are advances beyond barbarism in making organic provision for an effective, as distinct from formal, right to life and movement. It is hard to say whether the heavier indictment lies in the fact that so many shirk their share of the necessary social labor and toil, or in the fact that so many who are willing to work are unable to do so, without meeting recurrent crises of unemployment, and except under conditions of hours, hygiene, compensation, and home conditions which reduce to a low level the positive rights of life. The social order protects the property of those who have it; but, although historic conditions have put the control of the machinery of production in the hands of a comparatively few persons, society takes little heed to see that great masses of men get even that little property which is requisite to secure assured, permanent, and properly stimulating conditions of life. Until there is secured to and imposed upon all members of society the right and the duty of work in socially serviceable occupations, with due return in social goods, rights to life and free movement will hardly advance much beyond their present largely nominal state.

II. Rights to Mental Activity.–These rights of course are closely bound up with rights to physical well-being and activity. The latter would have no meaning were it not that they subserve purposes and affections; while the life of mind is torpid or remote, dull or abstract, save as it gets impact in physical conditions and directs them. Those who hold that the limitations of physical conditions have no moral signification, and their improvement brings at most an increase of more less materialistic comfort, not a moral advance, fail to note that the development of concrete purposes and desires is dependent upon so-called outward conditions. These conditions affect the execution of purposes and wants; and this influence reacts to determine the further arrest or growth of needs and resolutions. The sharp and unjustifiable antithesis of spiritual and material in the current conception of moral action leads many well-intentioned people to be callous and indifferent to the moral issues involved in physical and economic progress. Long hours of excessive physical labor, joined with unwholesome conditions of residence and work, restrict the growth of mental activity, while idleness and excess of physical possession and control pervert mind, as surely as these causes modify the outer and overt acts.

Freedom of Thought and Affection.–The fundamental forms of the right to mental life are liberty of judgment and sympathy. The struggle for spiritual liberty has been as prolonged and arduous as that for physical freedom. Distrust of intelligence and of love as factors in concrete individuals has been strong even in those who have proclaimed most vigorously their devotion to them as abstract principles. Disbelief in the integrity of mind, assertion that the divine principles of though and love are perverted and corrupt in the individual, have kept spiritual authority and prestige in the hands of the few, just as other causes have made material possessions the monopoly of a small class. The resulting restriction of knowledge and of the tools of inquiry have kept the masses where their blindness and dullness might be employed as further evidence of their natural unfitness for personal illumination by the light of truth and for free direction of the energy of moral warmth. Gradually, however, free speech, freedom of communication and intercourse, of public assemblies, liberty of the press and circulation of ideas, freedom of religious and intellectual conviction (commonly called freedom of conscience), of worship, and to some extent the right to education, to spiritual nurture, have been achieved. In the degree the individual has won these liberties, the social order has obtained its chief safeguard against explosive change and intermittent blind action and reaction, and has got hold of the method of graduated and steady reconstruction. Looked at as a mere expedient, liberty of thought and expression is the most successful device ever hit upon for reconciling trangquillity with progress, so that peace is not sacrificed to reform nor improvement to stagnant conservatism.

Right and Duty of Education.–It is through education in its broadest sense that the right of thought and sympathy become effective. The final value of all institutions is their educational influence; they are measured morally by the occasions they afford and the guidance they supply for the exercise of foresight, judgment, seriousness of consideration, and depth of regard. The family; the school, the church, art, especially (to-day) literature, nurture the affections and imagination, while schools impart information and inculcate skill in various forms of intellectual technique. In the last one hundred years, the right of each individual to spiritual self-development and self-possession, and the interest of society as a whole in seeing that each of its members has an opportunity for education, have been recognized in publicly maintained schools with their ladder from kindergarten through the college to the engineering and professional school. Men and women have had put at their disposal the materials and tools of judgment; have had opened to them the wide avenues of science, history, and art that lead into the larger world’s culture. To some extent negative exemption from arbitrary restriction upon belief and thought has been developed into positive capacities of intelligence and sentiment.

Restrictions from Inadequate Economic Conditions.–Freedom of thought in a developed constructive form is, however, next to impossible for the masses of men so long as their economic conditions are precarious, and their main problem is to keep the wolf from their doors. Lack of time, hardening of susceptibility, blind preoccupation with the machinery of highly specialized industries, the combined apathy and worry consequent upon a life maintained just above the level of subsistence, are unfavorable to intellectual and emotional culture. Intellectual cowardice, due to apathy, laziness, and vague apprehension, takes the place of despotism as a limitation upon freedom of thought and speech. Uncertainty as to security of position, the welfare of a dependent family, close to men’s mouths from expressing their honest convictions, and blind their minds to clear perception of evil conditions. The instrumentalities of culture–churches, newspapers, universities, theatres–themselves have economic necessities which tend to make them dependent upon those who can best supply their needs. The congestion of poverty on one side and of culture on the other is so great that, in the words of a distinguished economist, we are still questioning whether it is really impossible that all should start in the world with a fair chance of leading a cultured life free from the pains of poverty and the stagnating influences of a life of excessive mechanical toil. We provide free schools and pass compulsory education acts, but actively and passively we encourage conditions which limit the mass of children to the bare rudiments of spiritual nurture.

Restriction of Educational Influences.–Spiritual resources are practically as much the possession of a special class, in spite of educational advance, as are material resources. This fact reacts upon the chief educative agencies–science, art, and religion. Knowledge in its ideas, language, and appeals is forced into corners; it is overspecialized, technical, and esoteric because of its isolation. Its lack of intimate connection with social practice leads to an intense and elaborate over-training which increases its own remoteness. Only when science and philosophy are one with literature, the art of successful communication and vivid intercourse, are they liberal in effect; and this implies a society which is already intellectually and emotionally nurtured and alive. Art itself, the embodiment of ideas in forms which are socially contagious, becomes what is so largely, a development of technical skill, and a badge of class differences. Religious emotion, the quickening of ideas and affections by recognition of their inexhaustible signification, is segregated into special cults, particular days, and peculiar exercises, and the common life is left relatively hard and barren.

In short, the limitations upon freedom both of the physical conditions and the mental values of life are at bottom expressions of one and the same divorce of theory and practice,– which makes theory remote, sterile, and technical, while practice remains narrow, harsh, and also illiberal. Yet there is more cause for hope in that so much has been accomplished, than for despondency because mental power and service are still so limited and undeveloped. The intermixture and interaction of classes and nations are very recent. Hence the opportunities for an effective circulation of sympathetic ideas and of reasonable emotions have only newly come into existence. Education as a public interest and care, applicable to all individuals, is hardly more than a century old; while a conception of the richness and complexity of the ways in which it should touch any one individual is hardly half a century old. As society takes its educative functions more seriously and comprehensively into account, there is every promise of more rapid progress in the future than in the past. For education is most effective when dealing with the immature, those who have not yet acquired the hard and fixed directing forms of adult life; while, in order to be effectively employed, it must select and propagate that which is common and hence typical in the social values that form its resources, leaving the eccentric, the partial, and exclusive gradually to dwindle. Upon some generous souls of the eighteenth century there dawned the idea that the cause of the indefinite improvement of humanity and the cause of the little child are inseparably bound together.

See Our List of Programs

Conversation-based seminars for collegial PD, one-day and multi-day seminars, graduate credit seminars (MA degree), online and in-person.

Check out our collection of primary source readers

Our Core Document Collection allows students to read history in the words of those who made it. Available in hard copy and for download.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Responsibility without freedom folk judgements about deliberate actions.

• 1 Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
• 2 School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
• 3 Department of Philosophy, Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
• 4 Berlin Center for Advanced Neuroimaging & Department of Psychology & Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

A long-standing position in philosophy, law, and theology is that a person can be held morally responsible for an action only if they had the freedom to choose and to act otherwise. Thus, many philosophers consider freedom to be a necessary condition for moral responsibility. However, empirical findings suggest that this assumption might not be in line with common sense thinking. For example, in a recent study we used surveys to show that – counter to positions held by many philosophers – lay people consider actions to be free when they are spontaneous rather than being based on reasons. In contrast, responsibility is often considered to require that someone has thought about the alternative options. In this study we used an online survey to directly test the degree to which lay judgements of freedom and responsibility match. Specifically, we tested whether manipulations of deliberation affect freedom and responsibility judgements in the same way. Furthermore, we also tested the dependency of these judgements on a person’s belief that their decision had consequences for their personal life. We found that deliberation had an opposite effect on freedom and responsibility judgements. People were considered more free when they acted spontaneously, whereas they were considered more responsible when they deliberated about their actions. These results seem to suggest that deliberating about reasons is crucially important for the lay concept of responsibility, while for the lay notion of freedom it is perceived to be detrimental. One way of interpreting our findings for the interdisciplinary debate on free will and responsibility could be to suggest that lay beliefs match the philosophical position of semi-compatibilism. Semi-compatibilists insist that the metaphysical debate on the nature of free will can be separated from the debate on conditions of responsible agency. According to our findings the beliefs of lay people are in line with views held by semi-compatibilists, even though we did not test whether they endorse that position explicitly.

Introduction

Philosophers have been analyzing the relation of free will and responsibility since antiquity. Most of them have proposed that freedom is a necessary condition for responsibility ( Van Inwagen, 1983 ; Kant, 1998 ; Aristotle, 2000 ; Augustine, 2006 ; Vihvelin, 2008 ). Many philosophers furthermore claim that people act freely or autonomously only if they act for reasons ( Locke, 1975 ; Kant, 1998 ), or only if they are provided with options with different values ( Van Inwagen, 1989 ; Kane, 2005 ; Schlosser, 2014 ; Mecacci and Haselager, 2015 ), or only if the action has significant consequences for their personal life ( Roskies, 2011 ; Schlosser, 2014 ; Mecacci and Haselager, 2015 ).

Recent empirical research has shown that lay people’s beliefs do not agree with these conceptual positions. In one study ( Deutschländer et al., 2017 ) we found that the deliberation of reasons, the availability of different choice options, or the existence of real life consequences were all not necessary for an action to be considered free. On the contrary, lay people judged actions to be most free if (a) they were chosen without deliberation, (b) they involved different (as opposed to equal) options, and (c) they were believed to have different real-life consequences. Thus, paradoxically, deliberation was even considered to reduce freedom, counter to the notion that reasons play a key role in assigning freedom to actions.

Please note that this research pertained to subjective ratings of freedom rather than responsibility. For lay concepts of responsibility, in contrast, deliberation might non-etheless be important, but this hasn’t been empirically tested so far. Previous studies have already jointly measured the effects of experimental conditions on free will and moral responsibility judgements ( Nahmias et al., 2005 , 2007 ), however, regarding somewhat different experimental manipulations than here (see section “Discussion”).

Thus, here, we directly compare how freedom judgements and responsibility judgements of laypeople are affected by the factors deliberation, choice, and consequence. We compare how the following factors affect judgements of freedom versus responsibility: (1) Whether an action was spontaneous or based on deliberation; (2) whether the decision involved qualitatively different options (choosing) or identical options (picking) [for the distinction between picking and choosing see Ullmann-Margalit and Morgenbesser (1977) ]; (3) whether the subsequent actions led to consequences for a person’s life or not. As Nahmias et al. (2005) note, it is very difficult to ask subjects about abstract theories like determinism and compatibilism that are quite far removed from everyday life without biasing their answer in crafting the vignettes. Instead, we have opted to test action types that are both clearly relevant for the free will discussion, but also easily understandable in an everyday context.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

We deployed an online-questionnaire via university email distribution-lists. We received responses of 133 participants (62.6% female, 31.3% male, 3.8% missing values). The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 53 years ( M age = 25.03 years, SD age = 7.76 years). Almost all respondents (97.7%) had a high-school or university degree. 66.7% of the respondents had not previously thought about the question of free will, while the remaining third had (“Have you ever thought about free action or free will?”). The research was approved by the psychological ethics committee of the Humboldt University in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of the online-questionnaire.

Material and Procedure

We asked participants to respond to questions in an online questionnaire containing short written scenarios. We implemented those scenarios in the software Unipark (Questback GmbH, Köln, Germany). Each questionnaire contained eight scenarios. Those scenarios followed from a combination of three within-subject factors: deliberation, choice, and consequence. The factor deliberation used two levels: A person either deliberated about their choice or acted spontaneously. The factor choice included two levels: “choosing” among different options or “picking” among identical options. The factor consequence had two levels: Participants knew that the action either had significant consequences for a person’s life (signing a job contract) or it involved an insignificant action with no consequences (taking a note) (see Table 1 for all scenarios used in this study based on all possible combinations of the three factors). Before starting the questionnaire participants were randomly assigned to one of two possible groups: One group was asked to provide only freedom ratings, the other group was required to provide only responsibility ratings. This between-subjects approach in our mixed design was adopted in order to avoid priming the participants to the purpose of the study.

Table 1. The three within-subject factors and the corresponding scenarios.

At the beginning, subjects were presented with instructions for completing the questionnaire. We asked the respondents to assess how free/responsible they considered each of eight displayed actions according to their individual beliefs. For each respondent, the order of the scenarios was randomized. The respondent saw only one scenario at a time. Subjects answered using a rating scale with a range from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates “not free/not responsible” and 100 “free/responsible” (depending on the group, they had been assigned to). Please note that in the philosophical literature, freedom and responsibility are frequently considered dichotomous rather than continuous. Here we opt for the continuous scale because it entails the dichotomous case as one possibility for participants to respond. Below the freedom/responsibility rating an additional question was presented that asked, “How confident are you about the rating?” (confidence rating, CR) and was to be answered on a scale from 0 “not certain” to 100 “certain.” This was done to monitor whether subjects had clear beliefs about the different scenarios. There were no time constraints for responding to the questions.

Ratings of Freedom and Responsibility

Figure 1 shows the mean judgements of freedom and responsibility plotted separately for the three main experimental factors (for full results see Table 2 ). We performed a four-factorial mixed ANOVA with three within-subject experimental factors (Deliberation × Choice × Consequences) and one between-subject factor (Rating Type).

(1) Overall, participants rated the responsibility for actions higher than their freedom, as indicated by a significant main effect of the between-subject factor Rating Type [ Figure 1 ; F (1,131) = 15.37, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.40].

(2) There was a significant interaction effect between the factors Deliberation and Rating Type [ Figure 1A ; F (1,131) = 35.66, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.12]. This strong effect indicates that the factor Deliberation had different effects on ratings of freedom. Deliberating about an action (as opposed to acting spontaneously) led subjects to judge that action as more responsible but less free. The difference between freedom ratings of deliberate versus spontaneous actions was significant t (266) = -2.92, p = 0.004, Cohen’s d = 0.26. The difference between responsibility ratings of deliberate versus spontaneous actions was also significant t (288) = 9.07, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.56.

(3) There was no significant interaction effect of Rating Type and Choice [ Figure 1B ; F (1,131) = 0.257, p = 0.663], indicating that the judgment of freedom versus responsibility was not differentially affected by whether a choice involved different or equal options.

(4) There was a significant interaction between Rating Type and Consequences [ Figure 1C ; F (1,131) = 5.55, p = 0.020, Cohen’s d = 0.21]. While an action with consequences for a person’s life (compared to an action without consequence) was judged to make a person more responsible t (288) = 3.52, p > 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.23 it had no effect on the degree to which the action was rated as free t (266) = -0.21, p = 0.83.

Figure 1. Interaction between rating type separately for each the three within-Subject factors (Collapsed across all other conditions): (A) interaction between rating type and deliberation, (B) interaction between rating type and choice, and (C) interaction between rating type and consequence error bars indicate SEM across all subjects of one group. Asterisks indicates significant difference for post hoc analysis (n.s.– p > 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Ratings of Confidence

Throughout the conditions, confidence ratings were high ( M = 78.50; SD = 24.44), ranging from 67.73 to 86.86 ( Table 2 ). Thus, we found no evidence that participants were uncertain how to judge the scenarios.

Our results reveal important dissociations between judgements of freedom and responsibility regarding actions. Overall ratings of responsibility were higher than those of freedom. However, given the between-participant design of the study this overall difference might be a matter of scaling and is thus hard to interpret. The key finding is that the experimental variables affect these two types of ratings differentially: When an action was based on deliberation (rather than being spontaneous), the action was judged to be less free, but its agent was considered to be more responsible for it. When an action involved real-world consequences (vs. not), its agent was considered more responsible, but consequences did not affect the freedom. Whether an action was between equal options or not had no discernible effect on freedom or responsibility ratings.

Our study did not explicitly seek a representative sample (similar to many previous studies, e.g., those using Mechanical Turk). It consisted of a spontaneous sample of respondents responding to an invitation to participate. Overall, the distribution of ages in our sample is not that different than in standard experiments in psychology (mean age 25.03 years, standard deviation 7.76 years; please note that sampling from a Gaussian will always involve a few values from the tails). Our study was thus not designed to resolve the effects of age ranges. In order to address this important point we are currently obtaining data from representative samples on related scenarios, which is the only way to properly address these effects.

Previous studies have used similar designs to assess influences of experimental factors on free will and moral responsibility judgements ( Nahmias et al., 2005 , 2007 ). In one study ( Nahmias et al., 2005 ) switching from a negative action (robbing a bank) to a positive action (saving a child) increased moral responsibility ratings but decreased freedom ratings. However, this specific aspect of the study can only be observed descriptively because no direct test for an interaction between these two factors was provided (the focus of the study was otherwise). Another study ( Nahmias et al., 2007 ) showed for different manipulations (switching between neural and psychological determinism, switching between the real world and an alternate world, and switching between good and bad actions) that free will and moral responsibility were generally affected in a similar direction. In contrast, we find that factors such as deliberation and the presence or absence of consequences do have differential effects on free will and responsibility. Based on our previous work ( Deutschländer et al., 2017 ) one could speculate that these experimental manipulations might have been stronger in bringing out the dissociations between free will and responsibility.

In the present data, the freedom ratings considered alone were only affected by deliberation, but not by the nature of the choice (choosing/picking) or by the possible consequences. This is largely in line with a previous study where we found the factor of deliberation to have a moderate effect ( Deutschländer et al., 2017 ), whereas the factors of choice and consequences had only marginal effects. Presumably the minor differences are due to the lower number of participants in the current study.

One question is whether participants could have understood the deliberation vignettes differently. For example, if an agent acted spontaneously, participants might have thought that the agent had reasons but was not aware of them. In that case the difference between acting spontaneously versus deliberately was that the agent was aware of their reasons if they acted deliberately while they were not aware of their reasons if they acted spontaneously. In order to investigate this alternative interpretation, future research should distinguish between having reasons, being aware of those reasons, and forming reasons by deliberation. Furthermore, future studies could provide a more in-depth assessment between judgements of free will and responsibility by directly probing individual participants on both concepts within a single study.

Another interesting question is whether the freedom or responsibility effects pertain to the agent’s action or to the situation . In our first main finding the experimental manipulation is independent of the situational context: The difference between deliberative and spontaneous is only in the internal mental process, while the external conditions remain exactly the same. Here, the key effect of deliberation versus spontaneity can thus not be explained by differences in external conditions. In contrast, our second main finding of an effect of consequence involves a change in the situation the agent is in. However, please note that also in this scenario the participants were asked to rate the freedom / responsibility of the action, not the situation.

Another question is how exactly participants understood the factor Consequence. Participants have rated an agent as more responsible for an action with consequences than without consequences. When there are consequences of an action, there is more for the agent to be responsible for, so the agent is responsible for more. However, this is not to say that he has more responsibility. I can kill and steal with equal responsibility, even if I am responsible for more in the killing case. Participants might mistake the degree of responsibility of an agent with the harms the action causes. A potential follow-up needs to distinguish degrees of responsibility from degrees of harms for which a person is responsible in order to clarify what the participants had in mind.

Another interesting implication of our findings relates to Libet-style experiments ( Libet et al., 1983 ) Some researchers interpret the results of Libet’s experiments as evidence that human freedom is illusory and therefore the concept of responsibility also needs to be revised ( Wegner, 2002 ). Besides criticism by empirical researchers ( Schurger et al., 2012 ; Schultze-Kraft et al., 2016 ), especially Philosophers have pointed out a number of serious objections against the Libet-style experiments and their radical interpretation ( Sinnott-Armstrong and Nadel, 2011 ). Among those objections, one particular critique seems to be affected by our results. Some philosophers have suggested that the actions in Libet-style experiments do not qualify as free, because they lack reasons, distinguishable options, and real life consequences. “Arbitrary action (i.e., Libet Action) is at best a degenerate case of freedom of will, one in which what matters fails to hold” ( Roskies, 2011 , p. 18). Our results suggest that this particular objection might fail for the folk concept of freedom but still succeed for the folk concept of responsibility . From a folk perspective, actions in Libet-style experiments qualify as free action even if they are spontaneous, without much of a choice, and without consequences. The dissociation between freedom and responsibility in our study thus means that the Libet-style experiments do not speak to the issue of responsibility.

In general, the differential effects of deliberation on freedom and responsibility ratings raise questions as to whether freedom is considered a necessary condition for responsibility by lay people. We do not consider our folk psychological finding to mean that philosophers should avoid postulating this necessity, but our results serve as a warning that this necessity might not be intuitive, which is an important consideration given the immense public interest and engagement in the free will debate (e.g., Overbye, 2007 ). Please note, that many philosophers have argued that their positions should be in line with lay beliefs ( Jackson, 2000 ).

Our study might help to restructure debates about freedom and responsibility and partially alleviate the tension between neuroscience and psychology, which sometimes claim to refer to lay definitions of these terms ( Libet et al., 1983 ; Libet, 1985 , 2005 ), and philosophy, which often employs more elaborate definitions of freedom and responsibility ( Roskies, 2011 ). Lay intuitions of freedom are not in line with some common philosophical theories, because lay people ascribe more freedom in conditions of spontaneity and in the absence of reasons ( Deutschländer et al., 2017 ). However, the lay intuitions regarding responsibility are very well aligned with claims by many philosophers that responsibility requires consideration of reasons. These compatibilist philosophers do not normally think that actual deliberation is crucial for responsibility but only that the agent has to be able at least in principle to respond to reasons, an ability typically coined reason-responsiveness ( Fischer and Ravizza, 1998 ).

This account of responsibility opens up the possibility that agents sometimes have responsibility without freedom and that determinism is compatible with responsibility but not with freedom. Some philosophers ( Fischer, 2006 ) and scientists ( Gazzaniga, 2012 ) have explicitly endorsed this position, which is called semi-compatibilism. Our findings follow a pattern that would be expected if laypeople were to hold semi-compatibilist beliefs, according to which the ability to adequately consider reasons in deliberation increases responsibility but is not necessary for and might even reduce the sense of freedom. An interesting question is whether our results also extend to actions that are explicitly irresponsible (as opposed to less responsible). Our results don’t speak to this clearly enough because overall our responsibility ratings were high. However, this is certainly an interesting question for future research.

Our experiments obviously cannot prove directly that lay people are semi-compatibilists, as we did not ask them explicitly about their views on the relationship between determinism and freedom or moral responsibility. We doubt that lay people have stable, developed, or detailed views about such abstract theoretical notions 1 . Nonetheless, our studies do show that notions like reason and deliberation, which form an integral part of the necessary abilities for responsible agency according to semi-compatibilists, are in fact also positively associated with responsibility in the mind of lay people, in contrast with lay intuitions on freedom. The gap between the intuitions of lay people, scientific results and philosophical theorizing in this respect might be less deep than often assumed.

Ethics Statement

Study approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute for Psychology, Humboldt University Berlin.

Author Contributions

RD designed the study and analyzed the data. TV designed the study. WS-A conceptualized the input. J-DH designed the study and supervised the data analysis. All authors wrote the manuscript.

This work was funded by the Stiftung Humboldt-Universität, DFG Cluster of Excellence Science of Intelligence, DFG Collaborative Research Center SFB 940, John Templeton Foundation, and Fetzer Franklin Fund.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

• ^ The debate over lay intuitions on determinism and compatibilism between Nahmias ( Nahmias et al., 2005 , 2007 ) and Nichols and Knobe (2007) seems very much to support this point.

Aristotle (2000). Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Augustine (2006). De libero arbitrio = : Der freie Wille. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.

Deutschländer, R., Pauen, M., and Haynes, J.-D. (2017). Probing folk-psychology: do Libet-style experiments reflect folk intuitions about free action? Conscious. Cogn. 48, 232–245. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.11.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fischer, J. M. (2006). My way: Essays on Moral Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, J. M., and Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and Control a Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gazzaniga, M. (2012). Who’s in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain. London: Hachette.

Jackson, F. (2000). From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kane, R. (2005). A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behav. Brain Sci. 8, 529–539.

Libet, B. (2005). Mind Time: The Temporal Factor in Consciousness. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., and Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (Readiness Potential). Brain 106, 623–642. doi: 10.1093/brain/106.3.623

Locke, J. (1975). The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mecacci, G., and Haselager, P. (2015). A reason to be free. Neuroethics 8, 327–334. doi: 10.1007/s12152-015-9241-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nahmias, E., Coates, D. J., and Kvaran, T. (2007). Free will, moral responsibility, and mechanism: experiments on folk intuitions. Midwest Stud. Philos. 31, 214–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4975.2007.00158.x

Nahmias, E., Morris, S., Nadelhoffer, T., and Turner, L. J. (2005). Surveying freedom: folk intuitions about free will and moral responsibility. Philos. Psychol. 18, 561–584. doi: 10.1080/09515080500264180

Nichols, S., and Knobe, J. (2007). Moral responsibility and determinism: the cognitive science of folk intuitions. Nous 41, 663–685. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00666.x

Overbye, D. (2007). Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t. The New York Times . Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html#addenda (accessed May 7, 2019).

Roskies, A. L. (2011). “Why Libet’s studies don’t pose a threat,” in Conscious Will and Responsibility , eds W. Sinnott-Armstrong and L. Nadel (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 11–22. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381641.003.0003

Schlosser, M. E. (2014). The neuroscientific study of free will: a diagnosis of the controversy. Synthese 191, 245–262. doi: 10.1007/s11229-013-0312-2

Schultze-Kraft, M., Birman, D., Rusconi, M., Allefeld, C., Görgen, K., Dähne, S., et al. (2016). The point of no return in vetoing self-initiated movements. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 1080–1085. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1513569112

Schurger, A., Sitt, J. D., and Dehaene, S. (2012). An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 2904–2913.

Sinnott-Armstrong, W., and Nadel, L. (eds) (2011). Conscious Will and Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ullmann-Margalit, E., and Morgenbesser, S. (1977). Picking and choosing. Soc. Res. 44, 757–785.

Van Inwagen, P. (1983). An Essay on Free Will. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Van Inwagen, P. (1989). When is the will free? Philos. Perspect. 3, 399–422.

Vihvelin, K. (2008). Arguments for Incompatibilism. in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/ (accessed May 7, 2019).

Wegner, D. (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Keywords : freedom, responsibility, deliberation, consequence, experimental philosophy

Citation: Vierkant T, Deutschländer R, Sinnott-Armstrong W and Haynes J-D (2019) Responsibility Without Freedom? Folk Judgements About Deliberate Actions. Front. Psychol. 10:1133. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01133

Received: 05 September 2018; Accepted: 29 April 2019; Published: 21 May 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Vierkant, Deutschländer, Sinnott-Armstrong and Haynes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: John-Dylan Haynes, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Essays About Freedom: 5 Helpful Examples and 7 Prompts

Freedom seems simple at first; however, it is quite a nuanced topic at a closer glance. If you are writing essays about freedom, read our guide of essay examples and writing prompts.

In a world where we constantly hear about violence, oppression, and war, few things are more important than freedom. It is the ability to act, speak, or think what we want without being controlled or subjected. It can be considered the gateway to achieving our goals, as we can take the necessary steps. 

However, freedom is not always “doing whatever we want.” True freedom means to do what is righteous and reasonable, even if there is the option to do otherwise. Moreover, freedom must come with responsibility; this is why laws are in place to keep society orderly but not too micro-managed, to an extent.

5 Examples of Essays About Freedom

1. essay on “freedom” by pragati ghosh, 2. acceptance is freedom by edmund perry, 3. reflecting on the meaning of freedom by marquita herald.

• 4.  Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

5. What are freedom and liberty? by Yasmin Youssef

1. what is freedom, 2. freedom in the contemporary world, 3. is freedom “not free”, 4. moral and ethical issues concerning freedom, 5. freedom vs. security, 6. free speech and hate speech, 7. an experience of freedom.

“Freedom is non denial of our basic rights as humans. Some freedom is specific to the age group that we fall into. A child is free to be loved and cared by parents and other members of family and play around. So this nurturing may be the idea of freedom to a child. Living in a crime free society in safe surroundings may mean freedom to a bit grown up child.”

In her essay, Ghosh briefly describes what freedom means to her. It is the ability to live your life doing what you want. However, she writes that we must keep in mind the dignity and freedom of others. One cannot simply kill and steal from people in the name of freedom; it is not absolute. She also notes that different cultures and age groups have different notions of freedom. Freedom is a beautiful thing, but it must be exercised in moderation. 

“They demonstrate that true freedom is about being accepted, through the scenarios that Ambrose Flack has written for them to endure. In The Strangers That Came to Town, the Duvitches become truly free at the finale of the story. In our own lives, we must ask: what can we do to help others become truly free?”

Perry’s essay discusses freedom in the context of Ambrose Flack’s short story The Strangers That Came to Town : acceptance is the key to being free. When the immigrant Duvitch family moved into a new town, they were not accepted by the community and were deprived of the freedom to live without shame and ridicule. However, when some townspeople reach out, the Duvitches feel empowered and relieved and are no longer afraid to go out and be themselves. 

“Freedom is many things, but those issues that are often in the forefront of conversations these days include the freedom to choose, to be who you truly are, to express yourself and to live your life as you desire so long as you do not hurt or restrict the personal freedom of others. I’ve compiled a collection of powerful quotations on the meaning of freedom to share with you, and if there is a single unifying theme it is that we must remember at all times that, regardless of where you live, freedom is not carved in stone, nor does it come without a price.”

In her short essay, Herald contemplates on freedom and what it truly means. She embraces her freedom and uses it to live her life to the fullest and to teach those around her. She values freedom and closes her essay with a list of quotations on the meaning of freedom, all with something in common: freedom has a price. With our freedom, we must be responsible. You might also be interested in these essays about consumerism .

4.   Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

“Freedom demands of one, or rather obligates one to concern ourselves with the affairs of the world around us. If you look at the world around a human being, countries where freedom is lacking, the overall population is less concerned with their fellow man, then in a freer society. The same can be said of individuals, the more freedom a human being has, and the more responsible one acts to other, on the whole.”

Carlson writes about freedom from a more religious perspective, saying that it is a right given to us by God. However, authentic freedom is doing what is right and what will help others rather than simply doing what one wants. If freedom were exercised with “doing what we want” in mind, the world would be disorderly. True freedom requires us to care for others and work together to better society. 

“In my opinion, the concepts of freedom and liberty are what makes us moral human beings. They include individual capacities to think, reason, choose and value different situations. It also means taking individual responsibility for ourselves, our decisions and actions. It includes self-governance and self-determination in combination with critical thinking, respect, transparency and tolerance. We should let no stone unturned in the attempt to reach a state of full freedom and liberty, even if it seems unrealistic and utopic.”

Youssef’s essay describes the concepts of freedom and liberty and how they allow us to do what we want without harming others. She notes that respect for others does not always mean agreeing with them. We can disagree, but we should not use our freedom to infringe on that of the people around us. To her, freedom allows us to choose what is good, think critically, and innovate. 

7 Prompts for Essays About Freedom

Freedom is quite a broad topic and can mean different things to different people. For your essay, define freedom and explain what it means to you. For example, freedom could mean having the right to vote, the right to work, or the right to choose your path in life. Then, discuss how you exercise your freedom based on these definitions and views. 

The world as we know it is constantly changing, and so is the entire concept of freedom. Research the state of freedom in the world today and center your essay on the topic of modern freedom. For example, discuss freedom while still needing to work to pay bills and ask, “Can we truly be free when we cannot choose with the constraints of social norms?” You may compare your situation to the state of freedom in other countries and in the past if you wish. 

A common saying goes like this: “Freedom is not free.” Reflect on this quote and write your essay about what it means to you: how do you understand it? In addition, explain whether you believe it to be true or not, depending on your interpretation. 

Many contemporary issues exemplify both the pros and cons of freedom; for example, slavery shows the worst when freedom is taken away, while gun violence exposes the disadvantages of too much freedom. First, discuss one issue regarding freedom and briefly touch on its causes and effects. Then, be sure to explain how it relates to freedom. 

Some believe that more laws curtail the right to freedom and liberty. In contrast, others believe that freedom and regulation can coexist, saying that freedom must come with the responsibility to ensure a safe and orderly society. Take a stand on this issue and argue for your position, supporting your response with adequate details and credible sources. 

Many people, especially online, have used their freedom of speech to attack others based on race and gender, among other things. Many argue that hate speech is still free and should be protected, while others want it regulated. Is it infringing on freedom? You decide and be sure to support your answer adequately. Include a rebuttal of the opposing viewpoint for a more credible argumentative essay. 

For your essay, you can also reflect on a time you felt free. It could be your first time going out alone, moving into a new house, or even going to another country. How did it make you feel? Reflect on your feelings, particularly your sense of freedom, and explain them in detail. 

Check out our guide packed full of transition words for essays .If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

How Do Freedom and Responsibility Go Side by Side

By: Author Valerie Forgeard

Posted on April 21, 2022

Categories Self Improvement , Community , Inspiration , Society

When a human being grows up, he gets more and more personal responsibility in his life. At the same time, with this responsibility, one also gains freedom.

It’s important to remember that we don’t live in a black and white world, otherwise, we wouldn’t be human beings. When someone learns to grow up, they’ll struggle with freedom and responsibility.

Freedom and Responsibility Go Hand in Hand

The key to growing up is to find a balance between freedom and responsibility.

The same is true for society. It’s true that we who live in democracies have the freedom to say what we want and live how we want. But there’s more to freedom than the freedom to choose the car you drive in, the house you live in, or the job you do.

With Freedom Comes Responsibility

Freedom is a fundamental human right and an essential component of human dignity. It’s the prerequisite for being able to do what you want, be who you want, choose what you want, and think what you want.

Freedom has two sides: the freedom to do something and the freedom not to do something. Both sides are important because together they give us the ability to choose how we want to live our lives.

Freedom of choice allows us to decide where to live, where to travel, where to work, who to marry, how many children to have (if any), and other decisions that affect our lives. We’re free to decide what educational or career path to pursue, and whether or not to attend a religious institution or engage in different faith practices .

Freedom from discrimination allows equal opportunities for all, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation; it ensures that there’s not one authorized culture for society; it promotes tolerance for different cultures and ethnicities among people who live in the same country but don’t share their cultural differences in lifestyle habits (e.g., eating meat versus vegetarianism).

Freedom and Responsibility

Freedom is a state in which you can do what you want, but not what you want without being able to do anything about it.

In liberal democracies, you exercise your freedom as long as others aren’t harmed and there are no government restrictions. If your actions harm others or violate laws, you can lose your freedom by going to jail. In this case, you can no longer do what you want for a certain period of time.

You can also think of it this way, freedom is a condition for you to be who you want to be, but not who you want to be in any context. If someone does something illegal because they think it will make them happy and give them fulfillment, then they’ve already lost their ability to make decisions for themselves because their decision would have been against the law. This means that in making that decision, they weren’t really exercising their freedom because they were prevented from doing so by an external factor (the law).

What Responsibility and Freedom Owe Each Other

You owe everyone the right to be free. You owe everyone the right to be responsible for their own actions. You owe everyone the right to be free from outside forces when you make decisions for your human life.

We’re all human beings, and that means we should all have basic rights and freedoms – rights that allow us to make choices and be free from outside forces that would interfere with those choices.

The only way for humans to live as independent thinkers (rather than, say, robots) is through our ability to make choices. Once someone else starts making decisions on your behalf, they’ve taken away your freedom of choice.

Taking Freedom for Granted

Freedom is a precious commodity that many people have fought for over the years. It shouldn’t be taken for granted, because there are still people in this world who’re not free.

We enjoy freedom in many ways: we can go where we want, we can say what we want to say, and do what we want to do. These things may seem basic, but they aren’t guaranteed for everyone.

The Danger of Lack of Responsibility

A leader who doesn’t take social responsibility can put his people in danger.

For example, if you’re employed by a company, the company is responsible for your job and its performance.

If your job is eliminated, the person responsible for that decision should be prepared to answer some important questions about why the job was eliminated and what steps are being taken to ensure that the people left behind are treated fairly and respectfully.

After all, if an executive director or other leader makes bad decisions without being held accountable, those decisions could impact those who depend on their paychecks.

The Limits of Political Freedom and Accountability in a Dictatorship.

In a dictatorship, the dictator can do whatever he or she wants.

Members of the military can ignore the human rights of the citizens who oppose the government. Citizens aren’t free to speak out against their leader. But no one bears accountability for their actions.

Responsibility, then, can only exist in a society where intellectual freedom reigns and vice versa.

A society without these two qualities will be in chaos, since people will act only out of self-interest, regardless of whether or not this behavior harms others (which is usually the case).

The Limits of True Freedom and Responsibility in Liberal Democracies

The idea that human freedom and collective responsibility go hand in hand may be common sense. If one has freedom, surely one should be responsible for how one uses it? However, we must weigh what’s reasonable.

We know from the history of human nature that uncontrolled personal freedom can lead to anarchy and thus to the destruction of society. For example, laws were enacted against unpunished crimes, not only for the sake of the victim but also for the sake of the perpetrator, who could become a habitual offender if not sanctioned.

Similarly, freedoms are restricted to protect other people and groups such as children, communities, and even governments.

In Western societies, there are laws restricting free speech to prevent racial slurs or incitement to violence against others and to protect children from obscene material; laws prohibiting polygamy protect women from exploitation; Laws mandating vaccinations protect individuals from disease and society by curbing its spread; laws requiring people to vote or pay taxes serve the public good by ensuring that citizens participate in decision making or contribute financially to the government services they use.

In liberal democracies, restrictions on freedoms are necessary to ensure that individuals exercise their freedoms responsibly and to promote peace, order, and good governance in society, and policymakers have a civic duty and a great responsibility to ensure that some people’s freedom doesn’t restrict another’s individual freedom.

A democratic society cannot be perfect unless everyone respects their own moral obligation, but that doesn’t seem to be in our human nature.

Examples of Civil Liberties in Democratic Societies

• Freedom of Speech . In a democracy, people should be able to have the human right of free expression. This protects democratic decision-making by ensuring that everyone can express their opinions without censorship. It also helps keep our governments accountable and prevents them from becoming too powerful and controlling. However, as mentioned earlier, there’s a line that mustn’t be crossed.
• Individual liberty of choice . In democracies, people choose who’ll represent them in parliament. Anyone who’s reached a certain age can have a say in who’s elected (this right is called suffrage). The people who’re elected by the citizens form the government and make decisions on their behalf.
• Freedom of Assembly. People have the right to peacefully assemble in groups, such as political parties or unions, to advocate for change or to influence the decisions of their government.
• Liberty of association . This means that people can join with others to form groups that represent their interests, such as religious organizations, political parties, and labor unions.
• Equality before the law . This means that all people have access to justice without discrimination and that every citizen can expect similar treatment before the law if he or she offends someone or files a complaint.

Difference Between Legal Freedom and Moral Freedom

Whether you’re an individual or a business, we all want to be free. In a country like the United States, there are two types of freedom: legal and moral.

• Legal freedom means you can do whatever you want within the limits of the law. It’s also called “negative” freedom because a person is only free if he or she’s not prevented from doing so by others.
• Moral freedom is the ability to do what you want without violating your own moral code or that of your religious upbringing. It’s also called “positive” freedom because a person must say yes before acting.

The difference between legal and moral freedom may seem trivial at first glance, but there are important differences between them. In the U.S. or the United Kingdom, for example, it’s perfectly legal for an adult man to marry an adult woman or vice versa. However, it might be against a person’s religious beliefs to marry someone of the same sex; therefore, it wouldn’t be morally permissible for him or her to do so.

The Same Applies to Responsibility

Legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things. Legal responsibility means that you’re legally obligated to do something or to refrain from doing something.

For example, if you sign a contract that requires you to perform a service for another party, you’re legally obligated to perform the task. If the contract in question says that you cannot disclose certain information about the other party, you have a legal responsibility not to disclose that information.

Moral responsibility, on the other hand, is when you feel that you have a moral obligation to do or not do something. For example, if you feel that it’s morally wrong to cheat on your spouse and take action to avoid doing so, then you have a moral responsibility not to cheat on your spouse.

In Order for Us to Be Responsible for Our Own Actions, We Must Be Free From External Forces; However, With That Free Will Comes Responsibility

Many people think that free will and responsibility are two different things. In fact, however, they’re connected. In order for us to take responsibility for our lives, we must also have a sense of freedom.

We live in a world where individual freedom and individual responsibility are often seen as opposites. Our liberty is restricted when we have a responsibility, and our responsibility restricts our freedoms. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

We could instead see freedom and responsibility as something that’s connected. To see how let’s ask ourselves a question: what would it mean to be free? The dictionary definition of “freedom” is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one pleases.” In other words, it means that you’re able to act without interference from others.

Now let’s ask ourselves a similar question: what would it mean for you to be responsible?

According to the dictionary, responsibility is “the state or fact of having the duty to take care of something, or of having control over someone.” A simple way we could define individual responsibility is as a moral obligation.

In order for us to have an individual responsibility in our human life, we must also have a certain amount of individual liberty, because it’s important for us to have control over ourselves – therefore freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

Related: Why Freedom Is Important

Related Articles:

The global politics of human rights: From human rights to human dignity?

United Nations -Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Political Philosophy: President Franklin Roosevelt Redefines Liberty

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples

Responsibility and Freedom

Updated 15 April 2021

Subject Emotions ,  Lifestyle ,  Scientific Method

Downloads 44

Category Life ,  Science

Topic Freedom ,  Responsibility ,  Theory

A lot of thinkers have sought to understand how independence derives from obligation and whether we, as human beings, can truly be free agents by attempting to look at the forces that connect individuals to free will. This paper would also look at the theories of Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus and Peterson on equality and obligation. Why resentment comes in Nietzsche's theory has shown, over time, to be very intricate and philosophical, not as easy to understand. Not only are they elusive, but it is also not shocking to find conflicting points in the process of looking at his ideas. His philosophical works have therefore over time been centrally placed especially since his works in the later years generally contradict the works that he wrote earlier on. Part of his contradictory works could be linked to the fact that he tries to explore a very controversial area; free will as described by Leiter (2007). It is quite possible that at one point he feels there is a chance at freedom and being free and at another different given time, he feels that there may be no such thing as free will. It is plausible that no one can be totally independent from their moral responsibility. Nietzsche explains that being a sufficient free agent, one would need to be the cause of oneself, which is quite unachievable in reality, and thus it is not quite possible that one can completely be a free agent. According to Leiter (2007), the very concept that Nietzsche tries to bring out, of not being able to be free agents based on the fact that one cannot because of oneself is in itself quite contradictory and complex to say the least. In regards to freedom and responsibility, he also points out that mortals do not have adequate self-control over the actions that they choose to engage in, in order to claim that they were actually acting out these actions out of their own free will. Hence, this assumption taken into consideration with his first one on the lack of oneself therein means that human beings lack self-cause which satisfactorily endorses provenances and any allegations thereof of any ethical accountability. Nietzsche argues out that it is our customs and traditions, both ethically and religiously that conspire to keep individuals from ever becoming free agents as Leiter (2007) describes. Individuals are therefore bound by what their traditions want them to do and the consequent repercussions in the case that they do not live by the rules of ethics or religion. Sartre on the other hand seemed to be of the view that all individuals are always free and thus is sufficiently responsible for their actions as well as their circumstances. He further on points out that we may not be responsible for finding ourselves in this world but we bear the responsibility of what happens to us as we exist thereafter as Churchill (2014) explains. He seems to have a point here as individuals have no control whatsoever in making a decision on existing but they are actually in total command of their existence. As an atheist, Sartre is of the belief that without the belief that there is a supreme being in control of the universe, individuals would not live under the presence that their lives are supposed to be lived in accordance to some ostentatious celestial plan. This would certainly mean that without the belief that there is this supreme power running the universe, people would definitely live in the knowledge that whatever happens to them whether good or bad would be their own doing and not the works of some external forces that are apparently beyond their control. The lack of this supreme being would therefore mean that there is nothing that governs right from wrong which would equate to individuals being free agents who decide what is morally upright or wrong and in this sense therefore, they would be solely responsible for whatever happened to them, their actions and the circumstances they might find themselves into according to their understanding of right and wrong, good and evil. He happened to share most of his ideologies with Camus and the two felt that individuals must make a choice to exist in this world and more so hold it up to themselves to project their own meaning to the world so they can be able to understand it better according to Solomon (2001). This would mean people being free agents acting out of their own free will and bearing the burden that comes with freedom which is an appalling, incapacitating, accountability to exist and act realistically. Sartre and Camus were philosophically drawn together by the idea of freedom and the burden of responsibility which they seemed to unanimously agree on. Quite clearly, all the four philosophers seem to think that the presence of traditions and religious and ethical beliefs have played a major role in ensuring people do not get to practice their own free will and live as free agents. It is however difficult and almost impossible to picture what a world with free agents would be like. Individual persons would be responsible for deciding what was right or wrong and this would ultimately mean that each and every individual would have varied ideologies on what was right and what was wrong. What would appear morally right to one person would be considered as morally wrong to another and thus still there wouldn’t be so much of that free will after all as Solomon (2014) explains. It is for this controversial reason that Nietzsche may have been branded a contradictory philosopher although it is quite not easy to define how much freedom and responsibility there is in free will. It also seems that if freedom were to be given to all individuals and the same individuals held accountable for their actions, then there would definitely emerge the issue of resentment. Freedom is unanimous to all individuals, hypothetically, but would their thoughts be in sync with one another’s? Would it be possible for them to agree on what would be right and wrong? Wouldn’t that be a compromise to the definition of freedom and free will? It would definitely bring about the question of whether free will existed anymore, leading to resentment as people would want what they believe in construed as what is right and wrong. Eventually, certain individuals would have the upper hand and impose their free thoughts on the rest and eventually a system would have been created where there was no acting out of free will and someone was in authority. In as such, it is therefore a question of just how much does the pursuit for free will coupled by the weight of the responsibility of freedom has to do with gender and resentment. Women have been viewed as the inferior weaker gender for a long time now. Their actions more stringently governed by traditions and costume and authority harshly clouding their attempts to be free and heard. It is however possible to point out that over the centuries, a lot has changed in regard to gender and freedom. At one point, it was not even possible for women to choose who their leaders would be, and a woman owning property was even a more laughable scenario. This has most certainly brought a lot of contradictions as more movements that sought to empower women were formed and gender equality and equity has been quite sang in the latter years. While this had most definitely raised the alarm on the negligence of the girl child and more so her suppressed voice, it has also angered the male gender who might be of the sentiment that the whole idea of liberating the female is overbearing to say the least. Gender might plausibly be one of the boxes that have individuals locked in as is religion or ethical standings. One cannot simply act in a certain manner because they are of a particular gender, one is not allowed in certain places because, well, gender does not allow it. Gender biasness and particularly towards the female is no strange topic. Women have been denied to air voices on matters concerning politics because they are simply women. As Peterson put it, it is beyond an individual’s reach and power to control who they are but what they do with who they are is what they need not blame anyone for. Sartre also points out that no one has control on finding themselves as part of this universe but they sure can control how they live and what becomes of them as they exist. Probably what women fight for; to make their own mark in their own way and to have a voice and an opinion. While all everyone is trying to do is earn their freedom and be a free agent, why would there be resentment really? Is it that there are double standards when it comes to freedom? I mean, men can be quite as free as they want to be but for women, there is some degree of freedom that is attainable. Why would there be any sort of resentment towards a goal that is set to make the world a better place void of any authority only free will and ones responsibility towards their actions and situations? This would only take us back to Nietzsche, whose writings despite being considered contradictory may have found it too hard to explain the concept of free will. He might actually have a very solid point by pointing out that there is no such thing as free will really. The knowledge that we exist comes together with the understanding that there are certain forms of tradition that we must follow and adhere to. From the moment individuals are able to tell of their own existence, they are also hit with the reality of religious perspectives, traditional bindings, gender roles and a lot of other aspects that will infiltrate their minds and tie them down to a specific way of life. Perhaps it is the will to break away from this, and the criticism from those who ensure that authority is followed to the latter that builds resentment or the idea that the other person is more ambitious and too focused on achieving their freedom that brings about umbrage and bitterness. It does make more sense that an individual setting a goal and acting in such a way that the goal is achieved can be quite the definition of free will. Working towards a goal, set by some other individual cannot really be defined as free will. In light of finding a solution for the resentment, it is important for individuals to will themselves to the affirmation that they are solely responsible for themselves as individuals. It is also fundamental that they understand that freedom does not mean being in a state of denial as pertaining to one’s instincts. In the event that free will was attainable, there would be a need for all aspects that are a hindrance towards the achievement of free will to be categorically eliminated as this would also aid in the elimination of resentment. This would include religious and traditional ties, gender roles and other ethical aspects as well. This simply means that there is need to be freed from reliance on this freedom binding aspect while at the same time being able to achieve freedom to emphatically rebuff them. There is therefore no easier solution to fight resentment as pertaining to gender and freedom through to responsibility but via the freeing of the mind from any aspects that bind it to believe that there is actually no free will. Irrespective of this, it is quite justifiable that there is no free will and that means that individuals remain slaves of aspects that have been created by others for them. In conclusion, realistically, achieving free will for the human race is a long shot away especially in respect to being able to make individual decisions without having to worry about the rest of the population. However, if we choose to understand free will as our capacities to set goals and work towards the achieving of these goals, then a certain degree of freedom is certainly achieved. Also, freeing ourselves from the very nature of the traditions and customers that bind us and being able to freely reject them allows us to enjoy free will and at the same time gives us a sense of responsibility towards our actions as individuals. Resentment in regard to gender in this case, only shows the difficulty in being wholly freed especially from our own minds.ReferencesChurchill, S. & Reynolds, J. (2014). Jean-Paul Sartre: Key Concepts. London/New York: Routledge.Leiter, B. (2007). Nietzsche’s Theory of Free Will. Philosopher’ Imprint. Solomon, R. C. (2001). From Rationalism to Existentialism: The Existentialists and Their Nineteenth Century Backgrounds. Rowman and Littlefield.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

Or try my new AI-powered search bot

Get the weekly digest

Type your email…

• Which workshop?
• The LinkedIn Learning Courses
• Udemy Courses
• The Akimbo Podcast
• News and updates
• Social Media

Best of the blog

• Story of the Week
• Seth’s Top 100
• Popular Posts
• Books, videos, and speaking (oh my!)
• Free content
• About Seth Godin
• Find all the books at seths.store

Have you thought about subscribing? It's free. seths.blog/subscribe

Freedom and responsibility

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 accountable for your actions. It might involve figuring out how to get paid for your work, owning your mistakes or having others count on you.

Freedom without responsibility is certainly tempting, but there are few people who will give you that gig and take care of you and take responsibility for your work as well. 

Responsibility without freedom is stressful. There are plenty of jobs in this line of work, just as there are countless jobs where you have neither freedom nor responsibility. These are good jobs to walk away from.

When in doubt, when you're stuck, when you're seeking more freedom, the surest long-term route is to take more responsibility.

Freedom and responsibility aren't given, they're taken.

March 8, 2016

Share on Mastodon