Concept of Responsibility, Moral Responsibility

Society determines the range of choice. That range also depends on the conditions for realizing freedom, on the established forms of social activity, on the level of development of society and on the position of man in the social system.

Freedom is a specific way of human existence associated with its ability to choose, decide and carry out actions in accordance with its purposes, interests and assessments based on the perception of objective relationships and properties of things and the regularities of the surrounding world.

Freedom exists where there is responsibility. Only freedom of choice gives rise to individual responsibility for decisions and the actions that result from them. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin of human agency. Freedom gives rise to responsibility, and responsibility directs freedom.

2.1.2. Concept of responsibility, moral responsibility

Maybe you are interested!

Responsibility in general and moral responsibility in particular, in terms of terminology, both appeared quite late. Although since humans entered the stage of written history, that is, existed as a community, a society, it was also the time when humans began to form the consciousness and behavior of responsibility. In Vietnam today, responsibility and moral responsibility are words used quite a lot in daily life, but in research to clarify the connotation of the above terms is a relatively new issue.

- Concept of responsibility

According to some scholars, in Western culture, the term responsibility “is a product of modern times”, that is, the industrial revolution of the 17th - 18th centuries. However, the contents of this term appeared long before that in the form of concepts such as duty, obligation, etc.

In many cases, people define the concept of obligation through the concept of responsibility. According to the common concept, "obligation is conceived as the responsibility of humans before society and before others" and "moral obligation is the sense of responsibility, the self-conscious feeling of humans".

people towards others and towards society, which people consciously and voluntarily act on” [43, p.193], or “duty is the necessity to fulfill one’s moral responsibilities, to obey a will higher than one’s own will” [54, p.216]. That affirms that responsibility and moral duty are related to each other. Responsibility is understood as the obligation to shoulder, to perform. Responsibility is what is forced to do, not only to do but also to do well. If authority is what people enjoy, are required to do by others, then on the contrary, responsibility is what they are forced to do and are subject to the supervision of others [64, p.3]. Thus, the concept of responsibility in this way only sees one side of the problem, responsibility is somewhat not truly voluntary. It is thought that responsibility becomes the content of moral obligation when it is thoroughly perceived by individuals and voluntarily and consciously performed.

In fact, the term responsibility comes from the Latin word Respondere, meaning to respond, to answer - to react to the challenge posed by the situation, and to respond to the request from others [54, p.194]. In that sense, responsibility is the attitude and behavior of the subject towards a certain issue in society. This attitude is expressed in the implementation of moral obligations and compliance with legal standards, that is, compliance with ethical standards and later the law, which individuals in the community have agreed upon. The above understanding is somewhat similar to the definition of responsibility of the Dictionary of Philosophy , Moscow Progress Publishing House, responsibility is affirmed as one of the categories of ethics and law, "reflecting the special social attitude and ethical-legal attitude of the individual towards society (towards humanity in general); This attitude is expressed in the fulfillment of one's moral obligations and legal standards” [102, p.559].

Along with the strong development of modern society, the content of responsibility is increasingly expanded. Responsibility is often understood as the ability of people to be aware of the results of their activities, at the same time, is

the ability to voluntarily fulfill the obligations imposed on oneself. Or as EVZolotukhina - Abolina (1998) understands, in the work Modern Ethics - Sources and Problems : “… It also means foreseeing (feeling, grasping) the consequences of each of one's steps and trying to prevent the negative course of events that are likely to occur” [54, p.194]. Responsibility in this sense is a rational (calculated) act, the act of a person who is not indifferent when asking the question: What will happen after my actions?

In short, from the above concepts of responsibility, it can be seen that, conceptually, responsibility is what people must do and cannot avoid. Therefore, it is also the ability of people to be aware of the results of their activities, and at the same time, it is the attitude of people in fulfilling the obligations set by society. This attitude is expressed in the level of fulfilling moral obligations and legal regulations .

Thus, like freedom, responsibility and the development of human responsibility capacity are closely linked to and determined by the developmental needs of human life. Responsibility is formed in the process of adjusting the interests of individuals as members of society. People live and realize their interests in a certain community or society. The interests of each person can only be realized in a certain correlation with the interests of others and of society. More specifically, to realize their interests, each person must, to some extent, satisfy the interests of others and the interests of society. Likewise, the interests of society can only be realized when it has certain guarantees for the interests of individuals as members of society.

Responsibility can be considered from many different perspectives: from a value perspective, from a mandatory or voluntary level, or from a subject perspective...

In terms of value , responsibility exists in two basic forms: the positive form , that is, the form of human responsibility, and the negative form, that is, the form of human responsibility. In the positive form, responsibility is expressed in specific actions to maintain and develop social interests, maintain and develop social order, law, and morality. In this case, human responsibility is their awareness and ability to fulfill the demands and requirements of others, of the community and of society. A responsible person is a person who foresees the consequences of his actions and behaviors, and tries to prevent possible harm to the interests of society [114, p.23]. In this form, responsibility is not only the ability to correctly understand and fulfill the demands of others, but also the ability to correctly understand one's own needs. Being responsible for yourself means taking care to preserve and develop yourself, and knowing how to use reason to guide your own actions, not allowing irrational behavior towards yourself.

In its negative form , responsibility arises where the interests of society and of individuals are violated. In this case, responsibility is something we are obliged to answer for, to assume or to take upon ourselves all the consequences caused by our actions before the community and society, according to the conditions prescribed by law. Here, the responsibility that people must bear can be administrative, legal, or moral, depending on the nature of the action, behavior [114, p.23]. In the full sense of the word, it means to pay for them, to bear - "Bear responsibility".

In terms of the level of obligation or voluntariness , responsibility can be divided into two types: Objective responsibility and subjective responsibility (moral responsibility).

First , let's talk about objective responsibility. This is the responsibility towards society and fellow human beings for external actions. We can separate this responsibility into the following four types:

Contractual responsibility: This responsibility obliges us to act before society on behalf of contracts or commitments signed with individuals, associations or public authorities.

Civil liability: This type of liability requires us to be responsible for actions that have caused damage to others. Civil liability emphasizes compensation for damage according to legal conditions. For example, when a driver causes an accident, the car owner must compensate the victim.

Criminal liability: This liability requires us to answer for illegal acts. Depending on the severity of the act, there will be appropriate penalties: death penalty, life imprisonment, imprisonment for different periods or suspended sentence. For example: When a driver runs over and kills someone, the car owner must compensate the victim, and the driver must go to jail.

Responsibility to public opinion: This responsibility forces people to answer for their actions before public opinion. Rewards and punishments from public opinion are often scattered, because they are unwritten, not clearly defined, and do not originate from a clear social authority, but are often very strict.

Second, we talk about subjective responsibility (moral responsibility).

- Ethical Responsibilities - Ethical Responsibilities

Conceptually, moral responsibility can be understood as a synthesis of principles and standards that are recognized by society, but not yet (or do not need to be) regulated by law. Thanks to that, people voluntarily adjust their behavior to suit the interests, happiness of others and social progress.

Speaking of moral responsibility, means the responsibility that has been accepted by man as the basis of his moral stance, manifesting itself as the foundation of the inner motive of his actions and his behaviors.

Thus, compliance with the law or the performance of legal responsibilities is only considered as meeting the minimum requirements and standards set by society. Moral responsibility is the truest form of responsibility. It is the duty to answer for our actions before our conscience and before transcendent reality. There are cases where we have civil responsibility, but are not held morally responsible; on the contrary, there are also times when we have moral responsibility, but are not held civilly responsible, for example: the case of setting a bad example or advising others to do wrong. But, in principle, there will be no criminal responsibility, if there is no subjective or moral responsibility. For a defendant who is not morally responsible for a certain action, the court can hold him civilly responsible for what he has caused, but cannot punish him as a criminal.

Moral responsibility is too difficult, people cannot avoid or hide it. It targets people from their thoughts to their actions. People living in a social community cannot escape it. Therefore, it raises questions such as who is the responsible subject?, responsible to whom? and for what? The above questions are directly related to the issue of "attribution". "Attribute" to whom? And for what?

With the question: who is the responsible subject? It can be affirmed that the responsible subject is a conscious person. If a person is not conscious (for example: has lost memory, or is mentally ill), they cannot act in accordance with their will. They even lose the "capacity to be responsible" - that is, the awareness of what will happen and the ability to prevent bad consequences or promote good consequences [54, p.198]. Therefore, in this case, there is no way to talk about considering responsibility, let alone moral responsibility. A conscious person can be an individual, a business, an organization, a state, a government, or even a social action group.

or local communities… In short, it is people with all their forms of organization or institutions.

So, why is the responsible subject a conscious person? J. Sartre has a very good answer to this question. Sartre examines only one ethical standard that everyone must follow, which is the responsibility for all free choices: You can invent your own morality, you can become extremely good or harsh, that is your choice. However, with that, you need to bear all the consequences of your actions yourself and only yourself. If you say that you are forced, coerced, enticed or enticed - you are lying. Because the final decision is your choice [54, p.196]. Sartre's concept leans towards the position of affirming personal responsibility. But if viewed in a positive sense, this concept is not without reason.

To the second question, to whom are humans accountable? Broadly speaking, the history of ethics has four different answers to this question.

The first answer is that man is responsible to others (Tha nhan). Those who have such an answer can be expressed relatively as people who follow a worldly position. The second answer is that man is responsible first to God, and then to people like himself. This is the answer of people who follow a religious concept. The third answer is that all individualistic views believe that man only needs to keep his word to himself. Finally, the fourth option is the doctrines that direct the answer to reconcile the orientation towards others with individualism. They believe that man must answer to his own conscience, which does not have to obey any external imposition, but his conscience is directed not only to his own welfare, but also to the welfare of friendly people [54, 201-204]. It can be seen that,

Different currents of spiritual life answer the question in different, even completely opposite, ways.

As for the third question, what is man responsible for? - for his actions, for his thoughts, for his feelings, or for all of them equally?

The secular view, which emphasizes responsibility to others, asserts that, first of all, one must be responsible for one's actions. Legal responsibility is also built on this principle. If a person only thinks about doing something bad to someone, but has not actually done anything, then he is not responsible for anything. For example, if you are seething with hatred for someone, but do not release it in an act of revenge - it is not there... Thoughts cannot be judged legally, although intentional and premeditated crimes are punished much more severely than accidental and unintentional ones. Moreover, it must be said that the absence of intention, although it also lightens moral responsibility, does not completely eliminate it. For example: If someone is playing with a gun and accidentally fires and kills his good friend, he will also suffer from a guilty conscience and will be tormented by a feeling of guilt. And if the court were to leniently excuse this accidental murderer or punish him for his negligence in using a gun, the moral responsibility would be even greater. It may be paradoxical, but those who have become the cause of unintended disasters often feel “guiltily innocent,” even when no one around them strongly condemns them.

Religious ethics and ascetic ethics have a completely different outlook. In religion, we are primarily responsible for the state of our soul. If the soul is dark, then our works will be dark too. The great fathers and ascetics punished themselves most not for their deeds but for their thoughts, for the images of guilt that appeared in their imaginations. The body works but is not immortal, but the soul

Comment