Violence and nonviolence in the dialectic of freedom and responsibility
Before analyzing the main aspects of the topic of this section, we note that it is considered in the context of the existence of man and society, i.e. freedom and responsibility rights can and should be manifested in the context of activities and relations , which are aimed at satisfying his own material and spiritual needs, committed in a specific community of people.
In stating the importance and significance of the material and spiritual needs of man and the communities of people, materialistic philosophy emphasizes that human needs can not be met simply by appropriating ready-made products of nature. Every day, every hour, every moment a certain number of people are obliged to engage in material and productive activities, work. They must interact with nature and turn its substance into a boon for themselves and others engaged in other activities, other work.
However, the social essence of labor, cognitive-transformational activity of people is positioned not only within the framework of necessity, if labor was by nature only a necessity, then the community of people is never would become a society, the cradle of the most perfect creation of living matter - man. Of fundamental importance here is the fact that the social necessity of labor , cognitive-transformational activity generates the freedom of society , human freedom (Figure 7.2).
Fig. 7.2. The main characteristics of freedom
The work of man, his cognitive-transformational activity in general, is the foundation of the freedom of society in the development of society and man. Freedom here manifests itself in continuously expanding opportunities for the structures of society and man, all aspects of his being. The foundation of this continuous development of both man and society is the improvement of labor, relations that arise in different types of cognitive-transformational activity of people. Not in a utopian, imaginary world does man and society find their freedom, the realization of the highest aspirations, but in real subject work. Working, transforming the world and himself, a person, society acquire new opportunities, can choose the significant directions of their existence, realize their intentions, engage in real creativity, in the highest and noblest meanings of the word. There is no other freedom apart from this main path of development of mankind, its existence, in man and society.
How to define the concept of "freedom" applied to a person, based on the fact that this phenomenon is included in the work and relationships that arise between people? It is obvious that for this purpose one can choose an approach that considers the manifestation of human activity within the framework of the emerging relations in the process of its activity. A person in labor can not go beyond relationships as links and interactions that are sustainable and are based on people's commitments to each other.
People, as they are in a certain environment of their being, are limited in the choice of objective conditions of their activities. At the same time, they have real opportunities in choosing goals of their practically transformative activities, in labor. The ego is conditioned by the objective correlation of needs and options of goods that can satisfy specific needs. Since at each particular moment the beginning of labor a person has not one goal , to which he will strive to create a few , a choice appears, freedom of choice. It grows from the nature of social production, allowing a person to differently realize their professional skills and habits, as well as from the relationships that are established between people in the process of labor. This occurs within the boundaries of the rights of the person as the creator of the good, and his responsibility. In other words, we are talking about his readiness and ability to accept a certain retribution in various forms: moral censure, aesthetic cartoon, administrative reprimand, criminal punishment, etc.
The same algorithm of the dialectic of competence and responsibility is present in a person and when choosing means, methods of his labor or cognitive-transformative activity. Thus, freedom - is not an extraterrestrial phenomenon, but the phenomenon arising in work , in cognitive-transformative activity , where the most important component of this process are various forms and forms of social relations, as well as established in society forms and types of attracting a person
Centuries to justice. Outside the dialectic of authority and responsibility, freedom does not arise and does not exist.
Moreover, freedom is not absolute , but is relative and is implemented by choosing the path, means of a certain human activity. It is more tangible, the more concrete, the more fully and comprehensively a person comprehended, realized, felt his powers and his responsibility to other people and to himself.
Freedom, its level depends on the degree of development of the society, the types of human activity, its equipping with means, technologies, allowing through labor to achieve the most promising goals, spending for this less than a different kind of physical, mental and mental expenses. Than more choice of means and ways to achieve the goal by a man of labor, more strong> to cover the manifestation of his activity the level of freedom. However, if a person of labor or cognitive-transformative activity is in agreement with the general trend of activity in society, if his being and being of society are in harmony, then the level of freedom of such a person will be higher than that of one who conflicts with all, tries to create "his" algorithm of production of the necessary good for him.
In other words, freedom will always be greater and its level will be higher for those who have more right and responsibility. Schematically this is shown in Fig. 7.3.
Fig. 7.3. Dialectics of law, responsibility, freedom
In the reference frame, powers and responsibility , a person acquires freedom if authority is crossed with yourself responsibility. The greater the intersection of the vectors of authority and responsibility, the higher the level of human freedom.
Thus, if we assume that actions, actions, behaviors and other acts of human activity are the constituent parts of labor, and if they are committed by him in accordance with his interests, goals, subject to objective conditions and not to their detriment, a person can consider yourself free.
In other words, the freedom of a person as a subject of a particular society is his ability and readiness to act , to work according to his goals , due to the achievement of specific, meaningful for the good, on the basis of known laws development of society and nature, excluding restrictions for the manifestation of activity and cognitive-transformational activity of other members of the community, with whom it is in the corresponding system of social relations (Figure 7.4.).
Fig. 7.4. Freedom and activity in different philosophical approaches
Freedom of a person reflects the nature of his activities, which must be accomplished with knowledge of the case and subject to objective constraints based on his own motivation and in the choice of means and methods of this activity, on the basis of rational choice of direction and path, ex causing negative consequences to other people with whom he is in established relationships.
Responsibility is represented as the opposite of the rights of a person. The more a person has the right, the higher the level of his responsibility. Without responsibility, human freedom can not arise. In other words, the powers, freedom and responsibility represent a single whole. They are merged together.
True, the concept of responsibility Most of all it is used in jurisprudence, where it is connected with the punishability arising in connection with the commission by a person of a wrongful act. In this case, there is a legal responsibility, which is the application by the state of a specific person of coercive action, which entails penalties of various kinds. Legal responsibility is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that has its own specifics in different branches of law.
In the philosophical context, using the concept of "human responsibility", we distinguish in it two components: 1) the duty of the person to be responsible for actions and actions, as well as their consequences; 2) a certain level of negative consequences for a person in case of violation of established requirements. According to the nature of sanctions , the following types for responsibility: legal, material, moral, political, etc.
The responsibility of a person is present when there are relations of two or more people, i.e. it reflects the objective, historically concrete nature of the relationship between a person, a collective and a society from the point of view of the conscious realization of the mutual demands made to them.
The responsibility of a person is a person's personality characteristic, including his ability to deeply and comprehensively investigate a specific situation, reasonably predict the consequences of his actions or inactions in it, formulate and implement a certain algorithm of his actions in this situation, with dignity to take various types of encouragement and punishment for the consequences of their actions.
Obviously, in the dialectic of freedom and responsibility, violence can not fail to manifest itself, which is predetermined by the fact that man by nature and essence is a social being < strong> is responsible for himself, for holding himself as a person, and for everything that happens to other people. Responsibility is a self-regulator of the manifestation of human activity and at the same time an indicator of its social and moral maturity. At the same time, the choice made by the person, the decision taken means that he is ready to take on himself full responsibility, even for what he could not foresee. The inevitability of the risk of doing "not that" or not so assumes the person has the courage necessary at all stages of his activity: both in making a decision, and in the process of implementing it, and especially in case of failure.
Thus, freedom associated with responsibility can not but include internal violence over your "I" to meet the requirements that a person himself and his community set.
At the same time, the community always evaluates a person for the results obtained in labor, in the cognitive-transformational activity in which he participates. Obviously, the society will necessarily react to those deviations of a particular individual that it will perform, and use the means and methods available in society to prevent, minimize and eliminate the deviations that have been outlined. Naturally, it is quite possible to use and violence. It is important to recognize that the latter is an integral part of social relations in almost all spheres of modern society.
Violence is the level of social relations where coercion is actually used, which in varying degrees disrupts the natural course of the mental, mental, biological processes of a particular person or group of people, during which individuals or groups change the character of life of other people, subordinate them to themselves, master the results of their work.
Violence by its nature is a social phenomenon. By the nature of the means used and the form of coercion, social violence can be conditionally divided into two as: 1) direct violence that accompanied by the direct use of force; 2) indirect violence, when instead of using force directly, various forms, methods of spiritual, psychological compulsion are used. For example, a person can be subject to such verbal abuse that leaves no bleeding and scratches on him, but he will be forced to do something that he would never have done without it of his own free will: from a duel to suicide. In such cases, we do not see a shadow of physical violence, but we have examples of the worst coercion of will.
Does violence always act as a negative phenomenon in the context of freedom and responsibility? Can it be positive?
Within the framework of Freud's views and socio-economic approach to the development of Marx's societies, one can say that violence has a natural biological and social nature. Consequently, in the life of man and society, it can not but have a positive value. In the contemporary literature, the position of partial moral justification of violence within the general negative attitude towards him is quite common. This position justifies the fact of violence in that it is a "victim" the existence of man and society and is used in the name of a positive future, for example, as an opportunity to prevent greater violence.
Non-violence as a concept, theory and practice emerged in the XX century. and is associated with the names of L. Tolstoy, M. Gandhi and M.-L. Book. They advocated the idea that nonviolence is a post-violent stage of counteraction of social injustice. It can also be seen as a special program for resolving those conflicts that are usually solved by using the "morally permitted" violence.
Nonviolence is possible if one clearly understands and represents the connection in a person of his inner and outer freedom. In this case, non-violence is presented as part of the existence not only of an individual person, but of being a group of people, an individual in groups of people. According to thinkers, advocates of nonviolence, the evil that engenders violence exists in structures, not in people. In this regard, it is necessary to fight not with man, but with structures. The goal of nonviolence is to overcome injustice at the level of the relationship.
As for a person, non-violent supporters justify the following principles , which allow you to better understand and comprehend any rights:
- a person is the highest value among the whole world, therefore it must be treated with respect, even to the enemy;
- each person has a certain level of moral maturity and, therefore, can change his position;
- a person is a complex education and deserves to himself a deep trust and faith, which allows us to disclose always available in it humanity,
- a person is the highest creation of nature and social nature, and also an inner impulse, therefore, it requires the use of strategy and tactics of nonviolence.
Non-violence is necessary to learn. Nonviolence is the "philosophy of the way of life," which includes the truth of love for man and belief in a hundred human beings. That is why non-violent actions must be performed not because of their necessity, but because they are human.
In the existence of man within the framework of freedom and responsibility, violence and non-violence are dialectically interrelated. In order not to bend to extremes, one should refrain from imaginary offenses, retribution, learn to forgive, love instead of revenge.
The forms and methods of non-violent action are now determined on the basis of the following provisions: the objective must be objectively fair; non-violent means should not harm a person; the method of nonviolent action must be such as to exclude violent actions towards a particular person.
In form, non-violent actions should always exclude the content of coercion, conform to the traditional forms of human existence that have developed in society.
The methods of nonviolent action include dialogue, negotiation, mediation of some authoritative person, civil disobedience, hunger-strike, prayer, request, constructive program, etc.
At the same time, one must take into account the fact that the necessity of life in its natural and social forms includes such configurations of relations between individuals that presume violence can not exist without it. The same work almost always involves exploitation. Further, power relations, the presence of domination and subordination are all objective fundamental facts of human existence that regularly reproduce violence that can be minimized, hidden, translated into a latent form, but can not be completely taken away from either human biology or its social essence .
At the same time, the main argument in favor of the ideal of nonviolence is a proposition confirmed by public practice: when there is no future in the dialectic of freedom and responsibility, humanity has no future. If the prevailing moral opportunism in relation to violence persists, the scale and destructive power of modern life will put a cross on humanity.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay