2 Answers

  1. Let's try to think logically. Ideal freedom implies an extremely wide range of possible actions, limited only by the laws of physics. In such circumstances, each choice made is independent and the responsibility for it is borne by the person who made this choice. At the same time, this choice, given the absence of restrictions, a person makes at will. It turns out that a free choice made of your own free will also implies responsibility for it.

    However, under more realistic conditions, the responsibility for some decisions made of their own free will and without any restrictions, that is, in free conditions, this responsibility can be transferred to other people. It turns out that a person who made a choice in free conditions of their own free will may not have the will to take responsibility and transfer responsibility to someone else.

    To summarize: in ideal conditions, freedom really means the will to be responsible, but in real conditions there can also be a will to do nothing. Freedom means, rather, the absence of artificial restrictions on the choice of actions, since there may not be a will to responsibility in free choice – free choice can be made independently, and responsibility for it can be transferred to another person by transferring to him part of the tasks of implementing his personal free choice.

  2. Trick question) The answer to it will tell the questioner nothing, but it will tell you a lot about who is answering it. If I say no, it means that I need external constraints, since in this case freedom implies the absence of restraining factors, morality. If I say yes, then I don't need such restrictions from the outside, which is what Nietzsche says and how he understands freedom.

Leave a Reply