FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

Freedom and Responsibility

Freedom and Responsibility

Before analyzing all the three cases it is necessary to know what actually Freedom and Responsibility means?

Usually considering the possibility of freedom to act according to one's own will or desires. Normally you want to say that nobody objects to act as we do. We do not usually feel like lacking of freedom and it is impossible to walk for hours by the sea or stroll through the rivers of molten lava. Moreover, they say that we are free to try and suffer the consequences.

In the above sense, freedom is defined as something negative, i.e., as the absence of something. It is the sense that comes from sentences like this: "you can leave, nobody's stopping you, and you're free." But freedom is nothing more than that? Many scholars have argued otherwise, and define a second sense of freedom, positive, that is the freedom to do this or that.

Some people object to this distinction, arguing: "Is not the same as we have said before? If nothing stopping us, we can freely choose between the situations." It seems the same at first glance, but actually is not. Freedom, in a positive sense, is freedom of choice. But we are not free to choose when we do not know the possible consequences of what we choose. Nor do we choose freely when we are carried away by fear, fashion, habits or quirks in our elections.

CASE 1:

Q1. Did each of the agents freely commit the facts?

Yes, Caleb freely committed the facts as he was drunk and it was his responsibility to make sure that he is driving in the right direction. But unfortunately he drove the car into the river and his girlfriend drowned.

Q2. Did extenuating circumstances limit the amount of freedom each of the agent have?

As he was ...