Ethics as “Practical Philosophy”

Categories of Ethics and Concepts of Moral Consciousness

Moral Freedom and Moral Responsibility

One of the most complex ethical problems faced by both individuals and humanity at large is the question of freedom. The significance of freedom, its scope in human actions, and the boundaries and dangers of freedom have traditionally been addressed by ethics and philosophy through the lens of the relationship between freedom and necessity.

At the extremes of this discourse stand ethical fatalism and ethical voluntarism.

Ethical fatalism absolutizes necessity, placing the individual in complete—fatal—dependence on objective circumstances, where their actions follow a predetermined (by God or fate) path. The person is not free in their actions: their life is foreordained, and they are incapable of altering anything, thereby absolving them of responsibility for their actions. The result of this position is moral passivity, submission to circumstances, and dependence upon them (“what will be, will be”).

Ethical voluntarism, on the other hand, denies any necessity, asserting that a person is absolutely free in their moral decisions and must act solely according to their own will. This stance leads to a total rejection of moral norms, allowing for the assertion of arbitrary actions as a model for behavior.

Yet freedom is not synonymous with arbitrariness; it cannot exist without limitations. Justifying arbitrariness is, in fact, a negation of freedom, for the individual becomes a slave to their passions and whims.

The degree of a person's will and internal freedom or lack thereof is judged by the choices they make amidst numerous conflicts (between “can” and “cannot”; the clash of internal “I want” and external “I must”). In this context, three positions can be identified:

1. Moral demands are perceived as external coercion (absence of freedom);
2. Moral demands are understood as a duty (an internal coercion, which also renders the person unfree);
3. Moral demands merge with the internal needs of the individual (free choice).

It is important to emphasize that free choice, which involves self-limitation, does not signify a loss of freedom but rather serves as an indicator of true free will, a factor in the self-affirmation of the individual. Thus, moral freedom is not merely the selection of behavioral options but the transformation of moral demands into internal needs, into personal convictions.

However, contemporary ethical thought includes approaches that do not rigidly tie the problem of freedom to the problem of necessity. For instance, R.G. Apresyan suggests that issues of moral freedom are revealed not through the correlation of freedom and necessity, but in how decisions are made, which decisions are made, and what actions follow from these decisions.

A person is responsible for their choices, for what leads them to make those (and not other) decisions, for the actions they take, and for the consequences of these actions for themselves and others.

Thus, moral freedom is manifested in the ability to:

1. Make a conscious moral choice of actions and deeds;
2. Anticipate their consequences;
3. Exercise rational control over one's behavior, emotions, passions, and desires;
4. Provide a moral evaluation of them.

Responsibility is an essential attribute of freedom. Personal responsibility is an expression of the individual's freedom, intended to protect the subject from both arbitrariness and external obligation.

Depending on to whom (or what) and for what an individual is responsible, several types of responsibility can be distinguished:

1. Responsibility to oneself. I make a choice, and ultimately, I "choose myself," my life, my destiny, and therefore I bear responsibility for it. This type of responsibility is manifested in our doubts, feelings of guilt, and fears;
2. Responsibility for one's specific actions and deeds toward others, especially when their interests are affected. Here, moral responsibility (remorse, fear of public opinion) often coincides with legal and administrative responsibility;
3. Responsibility to the world and humanity, which, in existentialist terms, manifests as care for the world, driven by anxiety about it. This type of responsibility is the most complex and difficult to identify, typically expressed in the formula, "I am responsible for everything."

Furthermore, the degree of responsibility also depends on the significance of what is being done for the fate of others and the scale of the decisions being made. One of the most important elements of morality is a sense of connection to the problems of others and a feeling of responsibility for them.

The level of responsible behavior significantly depends on the degree of the subject’s independence and, ultimately, the hierarchy of statuses. One of the paradoxes of responsibility is that rigid and detailed external control does not enhance the quality of activity but rather diminishes it. Such control is effective only where the subject operates under unchanging conditions, performing the simplest tasks that require no choice or initiative. Strict control may intensify responsibility but only by narrowing its scope. The subject becomes responsible only for what is demanded of them and is entirely indifferent to the overall activity and its ultimate result.

Carrying out orders is the simplest form of demonstrating responsible behavior, and thus, appealing to orders is a common way of absolving oneself of personal responsibility for the final outcome. Throughout history, the execution of one or another "sacred" duty has often been used to justify the most horrific crimes. The highest form of control is self-control, in which the zone of responsibility becomes maximal. As A.P. Skrypnyk notes, the level of responsibility is directly proportional to the degree of the subject's independence in choosing and carrying out their activities.

Thus, responsibility implies not only adherence to certain guidelines and laws—both external and internal—but also the ability to make a free choice each time and to bear the burden of its consequences. Unlike duty, responsibility entails accepting the full complexity of remorse for unfulfilled choices or for those that did not turn out as "intended." It involves "holding" oneself accountable for the unforeseeable consequences of one's actions. For this reason, throughout the historical development of humanity, the degree of importance placed on personal and collective responsibility for oneself and the world continues to grow.