We continue to discuss the most pressing issues that were raised during the November 12 meeting of the Human Rights Council under the President of the Russian Federation.
President Vladimir Putin said that he is not against introducing responsibility for persecution due to criticism, including from journalists, RIA Novosti reports.
“We need to think about this, I don’t see anything bad here,” he said, commenting on the corresponding proposal made by journalist Elena Masyuk, in whose speech there was a proposal to return the corresponding article to the criminal code. “In the Soviet Criminal Code there was Article 139 “Persecution of citizens for criticism.” There is no such article in the current code, and, it seems to me, this is in vain. If an article about libel is returned, then similar liability should be established in cases of prosecution for criticism,” the journalist said. The President is not against developing a mechanism, some kind of “legal technique” for officials to respond to critical articles in the media, but he still doesn’t really understand how this can be done. “I am ready, but the mechanism, the legal technique must be effective,” he said.
In her speech, the famous journalist raised a whole range of interrelated issues, united by one topic - the relationship between representatives of the media and the authorities, most of which are either not regulated by law, or the corresponding articles do not work. Persecution of journalists due to criticism is closely related to return to the Criminal Code articles about libel. Let us recall that on July 30, Putin signed a law restoring criminal liability for libel, which was transferred to the category of administrative offenses in December 2011. Now, according to the current law, the dissemination of knowingly false information discrediting the honor and dignity of another person is punishable by a fine or compulsory labor. At the discussion stage, the bill caused a negative reaction from a number of representatives of the journalistic community, who saw in the document an attempt to limit freedom of speech, in particular the right to criticize the authorities. According to the journalist, “the first reaction of many bosses who read criticism about themselves in a newspaper or see some critical report is to accuse the journalist of libel.” In the current judicial system, when an official has absolute priority, it is the accusation of libel that can become an excellent means of destroying the remnants of the independent press. The President supported the journalist’s initiative. “I think it’s possible (to clarify the wording), there’s been so much arguing about this. The vast majority of countries have such an article,” Putin said. Meanwhile, he added, officials also sometimes need protection from journalists. “They (officials – editor’s note) cannot be smeared with the same mud all over them. We need to protect them from unjustified attacks.”
The next burning question raised by Elena Masyuk concerned lack of reaction from responsible persons to criticism from media representatives. “In 1996, a Decree was issued that obligated all managers to review critical media publications within three days and to inform editors about the measures taken within two weeks. Now the vast majority of critical publications remain unanswered; officials responded to freedom of speech with “freedom of hearing.” This is very convenient for officials, but extremely dangerous for society, and in the end, in fact, everyone, all of us, ended up losing,” the correspondent said. She came up with a proposal to instruct the State Legal Administration of the President, together with members of the Human Rights Council, to prepare a draft of an appropriate decree or law that would no longer allow officials to ignore the press. “I want to do this,” Putin answered simply.
In addition, the President promised to control the progress of the investigation into attacks on journalists.“I will definitely return to this in the very near future,” he told members of the Council. Masyuk drew the attention of those gathered to another broken letter of the law. “Last year, criminal liability for obstructing the legitimate professional activities of journalists was strengthened. But this article still doesn't work. According to the Union of Journalists of Russia, since December last year alone, about 30 journalists were injured while performing their professional duties, but no one was punished for this, despite the fact that these were violent actions against journalists.”
“We need to think about this, I don’t see anything bad here,” “I’ll definitely come back to this in the very near future,” “I want to do it,” “Let’s think about it together, I have nothing against it,” and finally, “I “ “for,” I just don’t really understand how we can do this with you.” These are President Vladimir Putin’s answers to the pressing questions posed in the journalist’s speech (quoted).
What kind of civil society can we talk about in a country if its president comments on the relationship between the authorities and the media like this: “... a real man should always try, and a real girl should always resist... this means that the government seeks to reduce the amount of criticism directed at itself, and the media always draw attention to the government’s mistakes” (from a speech at a meeting with journalists in the Kremlin in December 2004). Elena Masyuk cited this quote in her speech. And although Putin explained: “I took this from a film, from a famous film. This is a joke,” but this is exactly how the president defined the level of freedom of speech in Russia.
a character trait that clearly manifests itself at the “attitude” and behavioral level both as readiness and as the implementation of this readiness to take on the burden of decision-making and sanctions for failure, not only when this activity is carried out by the “responsible subject” himself, but also when he is formally or informally assigned control over manifestations of group activity and its consequences. As part of the functioning of an official group or organization, the “responsible subject” is entrusted with external forms of stimulation and authorization of his responsible behavior (accountability, punishability and the right to mandatory control, etc.). Of course, in this case, at the same time, this person functions in conditions of the presence of internal forms of volitional self-regulation of his responsible activity, but nevertheless, these forms (a sense of responsibility, a sense of duty, etc.) are determined when the informal system of interpersonal relations is included in group and especially when it comes to generally informal communities. It should be noted that at the behavioral level, responsibility as a personal trait most clearly appears in the manifestations of the socio-psychological phenomenon of attribution of responsibility for successes and failures in conditions of joint activity. Within the framework of the theory of activity-based mediation of interpersonal relationships in a group (A. V. Petrovsky), it was shown that in groups of different levels of socio-psychological development, community members assign and evaluate responsibility for the results of group activity differently. Truly responsible behavior, when an individual takes responsibility, first of all, for failures and obsessively, demonstratively does not emphasize his exceptional contribution to the overall group success, is perceived by the community as a completely normative personal position. In a group of a low level of development, such behavior, as a rule, is regarded as above the norm and, at the same time, burdened by some ambitious-pragmatic motives.
It is quite obvious that responsibility as a stable character trait is directly related to such personal parameters as internality-externality and achievement motivation. It is clear that an individual with a developed sense of responsibility is more likely to consider successes and failures as the result of his own activity, rather than attribute them to external circumstances. Similarly, the completely conscious readiness of an individual to accept responsibility for the possible unsuccessful outcome of an enterprise associated with an increased, although calculated in advance, risk, reinforces the mindset of achievement (which in no case should be confused with the reckless readiness to take unreasonable risks, which is characteristic of irresponsible people). It must be said that the cause-and-effect structure of relationships in this triad today remains insufficiently studied in modern psychology, however, it can be confidently stated that the formation of responsibility as a dispositional personal attitude, as well as an attitude towards achievement and localization of the individual in the “internality- externality” is largely determined by the specifics of individual development at an early age.
There is a fairly stable stereotype according to which the development of responsibility in a child is facilitated by strictly defined behavioral frameworks, high demands and control from adults, i.e., in essence, an authoritarian model of upbringing. In fact, upon closer examination it becomes clear that such an educational model, as a rule, leads to the total irresponsibility characteristic of an authoritarian personality. A clear confirmation of this thesis can be the total reluctance and inability to admit personal responsibility for the failures inherent in career military personnel, most of whom were brought up precisely in such conditions (it is no coincidence that the well-known maxim “Victory has many fathers, defeat is always an orphan” has become widespread in almost all countries of Western civilization). Suffice it to recall how, after the sinking of the Kursk submarine, military bureaucrats quite persistently convinced the public of the presence of a mythical “NATO” submarine that allegedly rammed a Russian boat. Moreover, none of the “heroes” of that tragic story admitted their responsibility for what happened even after the end of the official investigation, which came to the unequivocal conclusion that the cause of the disaster was a faulty torpedo on board the submarine.
Such a desire to shift one’s own official - official, and informal (in the given example moral) responsibility to anyone is fully inherent in the civil bureaucracy. Moreover, it is combined with a stable, socio-pathological desire to attribute to oneself personally the main merit in any, including rather dubious achievements. An example is the readiness with which the heads of law enforcement agencies accepted the highest state awards for the “successful” operation to rescue hostages in the theater center on Dubrovka (the infamous “Nord-Ost”), during which dozens of innocent people died. Such personal attitudes are also formed in the process of authoritarian education, in which a positive assessment from adults is received not by the child’s real achievements, but by his willingness and ability to “know his place” and act strictly within the framework of rules and regulations. Under certain conditions, a clearly expressed personal attitude towards refusing responsibility for failures, combined with attributing to oneself exceptional merits in achieving success, gives rise to such an extremely dangerous phenomenon in social terms as the Tsakhes phenomenon.
A necessary condition for the formation of a full sense of responsibility in a child is not dictatorship and guardianship on the part of adults, but a strategy of cooperation and partnership. Among other things, it involves providing a sufficient degree of freedom and the right to make mistakes both within the framework of substantive activities and interpersonal interaction with senior partners. Moreover, these conditions must be met at a fairly early age.
It must be said that, as shown in a number of studies, along with personal predisposition, there are a number of actual socio-psychological variables that increase or, conversely, decrease the likelihood of an individual’s responsible behavior in a given situation. One of them, as already noted, is the level of group development.
Another factor that significantly influences an individual’s willingness to accept responsibility is the predictability and awareness by him of the possible consequences of his activity. Confirmation of the validity of this thesis was obtained, in particular, in an experiment conducted in 1979 by a group of psychologists at Princeton University. The experimenters asked students to “...record speeches in support of doubling the number of students in first-year classes. (This was an unpleasant prospect for students, since Princeton has a reputation for being a small, elite college.) Some students were told that their performance might be reviewed by members of the admissions committee that was handling the issue (predicted consequences); others were told that the performances would be given to certain groups, but the groups were not named (predictable consequences). And others were told nothing about any further use of their speeches (unforeseen consequences). After the speeches were recorded, everyone was told that their counterattitudinal speeches would be forwarded to the selection committee.... Both predicted and foreseeable consequences caused an attitude change in the direction of the participant's speech. Only in case of unpredictable consequences this did not happen.”1 In this context, it is quite legitimate to consider a change in the initial attitude of the subjects as evidence of their willingness to accept responsibility for the possible consequences of their performances.
Another factor that significantly influences an individual’s willingness to accept responsibility both for the consequences of an active act and for the choice of one or another alternative at the stage of decision-making and planning is the degree of anonymity of the proposed actions. As socio-psychological practice shows, “impersonal activity” (“Let’s start working, and in a couple of months we’ll get together and see how far we’ve come”) leads to a dilution of responsibility even in groups of a high level of development. This is confirmed by the results of a number of experiments.
During one of them, conducted in the USA in the early 80s. XX century, “during the celebration of All Saints’ Day, groups of children who appeared in one of the houses with traditional threats and demands for treats were asked in return to donate candy for children from the local hospital. The study used three experimental conditions to manipulate children's perceptions of personal responsibility. In the first experimental situation, the woman who met the children made each person personally responsible for the candy they donated, saying that she would write the child's name on the bag of candy. In the second case, she made one child responsible for the entire group in the same way. In the third situation, personal responsibility was not emphasized. The difference in responsibility had a clear impact on the amount of candy children donated... When individual responsibility for each child was emphasized, children donated an average of five candies; when one child was responsible for the entire group, the average number of candies donated dropped to three when no one was responsible, each child was given only two candies. The more the child’s personal responsibility was emphasized, the more generous assistance he provided to sick children.”2
The obvious practical conclusion from this and a number of similar experiments is not only the expediency, but also the need for a clear distribution of personal responsibility of group members for the implementation of group decisions. And yet, in such cases, it probably makes sense to talk not so much about responsibility as about socially approved behavior and fear of public condemnation. The most important point in the context of the issues under consideration is the question of readiness to accept personal responsibility as a stable personal characteristic of a specific member of an equally specific community.
Therefore, a practical social psychologist must clearly distinguish, when working with a specific group or organization, cases of desire to evade the well-deserved responsibility of some group members, exalted-sacrificial, sometimes hysterical attempts to take on the entire burden of responsibility for a group-wide and at the same time unsuccessful solution to the problem of others, and manifestations of genuine , quite adequate personal responsibility of third parties.
The Main Investigation Department (GID) under the Moscow City Internal Affairs Directorate, as Vremya Novostei learned, has opened a series of criminal cases of tax evasion against the heads of a number of insurance companies - LLC European Insurance Company (ESK), LLC SK Prombezopasnost , CJSC SAC Informstrakh and CJSC Nika Plus. The basis for this was the materials obtained during the investigation into the former economist of the Moscow Metropol bank Sergei Tikhomirov, who, as the investigation believes, at one time organized a large-scale scheme for illegal cash withdrawal. Among his clients, according to the State Statistics Service, were these insurance companies, which Mr. Tikhomirov also helped to evade paying income taxes by pumping money through his bank under the guise of fictitious reinsurance contracts.
As a result of the “criminal actions” of insurers, according to the State Statistics Service, the state lost about 200 million rubles. The leaders of these companies fully admit their guilt, and in one of these cases a guilty verdict recently came into force. As for Mr. Tikhomirov himself, who is still wanted, the damage he caused, according to preliminary estimates, amounted to over 50 billion rubles.
Detectives from the Department of Economic Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs learned about the cash-out business organized by Sergei Tikhomirov five years ago last year from the materials of the audit of Tax Inspectorate No. 50. It followed from them that about 250 shell companies were registered with the tax authorities (such as SK Zolotoy Garant LLC, PC FinGaRe LLC and PC FinRe LLC, Invest-Garant LLC) that had zero balances, did not conduct any business activity, but several tens of millions of rubles were pumped through their accounts every day.
During the investigation, detectives found that almost all such companies were registered “to persons who had nothing to do with the financial and economic activities of the companies, and their actual leader was Tikhomirov.” As it turned out, it was he who organized a large scheme for illegal cash withdrawal, the services of which were used by various Moscow insurance companies. The police established that the accounts of more than 50 shell companies were registered with Metropol Bank. According to rough estimates, over 50 billion rubles were transferred in this way through Metropol in 2006–2007 alone. For his services, Mr. Tikhomirov, as detectives found out, took commissions that varied depending on the market situation. For example, if law enforcement agencies at some point managed to “cover up” several underground structures, then the percentage of the deal immediately jumped up. Commissions also depended on the time of day, urgency, size of the amount, etc. – from 0.5 to 7% for each operation.
Based on these data, in August last year, the State Investigative Directorate opened a criminal case against Mr. Tikhomirov, charging him with illegal business and complicity in tax evasion. At the same time, a search was carried out in his office on Vorontsovskaya Street, where “documents of the financial and economic activities of several cashing companies, compiled on Tikhomirov’s instructions, as well as seals of fictitious companies and a bank-client electronic document management system were discovered and seized.” Mr. Tikhomirov himself, without waiting for arrest, went on the run, and therefore was later put on the international wanted list.
Meanwhile, the investigation continued, and in December last year the State Investigative Directorate opened several more cases against the fugitive’s regular clients. The general directors of several insurance companies came under suspicion: Lyudmila Zimina (ESK), Vladimir Vinogradov (Prombezopasnost), Vladimir Proshin (SAK Informstrakh) and Marat Kamalov (Nika Plus). The investigation found that all of them, at different times, “resorted to the services of Tikhomirov and his companies to evade paying income taxes for allegedly providing reinsurance services.”
All these companies were engaged in insurance of various risks, accidents, property of individuals and legal entities and had appropriate licenses for all types of activities. At the same time, they often resorted to the services of reinsurance companies, since for many transactions they could not independently bear insurance liability. Roughly speaking, when insured events occurred, insurers did not have enough funds to make all the payments stipulated in the contracts, and reinsurance companies took on part of the responsibility, guaranteeing full payments.
Among the companies with which insurance companies collaborated in this way were PC FinRe, PC FinGaRe and IC Zolotoy Garant. During interrogations, the businessmen admitted that they knew that these companies were “controlled by Tikhomirov” and, in fact, were “one-day companies.” However, they were forced to resort to their services due to the fact that insurance companies at various times found themselves in “difficult financial situations and were not able to fully pay workers, which could lead to their dismissals and the loss of most of their counterparties, which attracted would lead to inevitable bankruptcy." And companies controlled by Tikhomirov could also provide assistance in “minimizing” income taxes. However, none of the businessmen could remember who exactly recommended that they turn to Tikhomirov “for support.”
The scheme of interaction between Mr. Tikhomirov and insurance companies was clearly worked out. The general director of one of them contacted the fraudster’s office by email, after which “the sequence of actions to carry out reinsurance operations was agreed upon.” A few days later, the insurer received from the courier a package of constituent documents, copies of licenses and details of one of the fly-by-night companies. Then the heads of insurance companies (IC) prepared a package of documents “evidencing the alleged financial and economic relations of the insurance company with fictitious companies” and sent them by courier to Tikhomirov with a request to sign them on behalf of the dummies “to give the transactions legitimacy.” As soon as the documents were returned with signatures and seals of the supposed leaders of the shell companies, money was deposited into their accounts. This information was reflected in the reporting of insurance companies, which formally led to an understatement of profits and, accordingly, to a reduction in tax amounts.
Thus, the investigation established that “ESK” did not pay additionally to the budget about 12 million rubles, “Prombezopasnost” and “SAK “Informstrakh” - over 50 million rubles. each, and “Nika Plus” caused damage to the state in the amount of more than 100 million rubles.
“During the investigation, it also turned out that the general director of Niki Plus entered into false agreements risking the lives of his 500 subordinates,” senior lieutenant of justice Pavel Demenko, an investigator of the 6th department of the investigative unit of the State Investigative Directorate, told Vremya Novostey. – As a result, company employees received a monthly advance from their salaries as an insurance payment for allegedly receiving various physical injuries. We did not ignore the Metropol bank, through which, according to rough estimates, about 50 billion rubles were pumped. A criminal case has been initiated against its leaders under Art. 172 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (illegal banking activities). As part of this investigation, searches were recently carried out at the bank's managers and some of its employees. For now, the bankers are suspects in the case, but I do not rule out that their procedural status will change in the near future. In addition, recently the guilty verdict of the Tushinsky District Court of Moscow in the case of the general director of “ESK” Zimina entered into legal force. Since she fully admitted her guilt and sincerely repented of what she had done, the court sentenced her to a fine of 500 thousand rubles.” >News Time Karacheva E.
Rights, duties and responsibilities are established in the Constitution. They are provided for all people living in the country.
Law and responsibility
When receiving certain opportunities, the subject must follow certain patterns of behavior. Citizens and organizations are held liable for violation of any regulations. It represents a special relationship formed between the intentions, actions of people, an individual or institutions, assessments of completed actions by other subjects or society as a whole. The concept of responsibility in legal literature presupposes the presence of a person’s conscious physical and intellectual readiness to abstain or implement a set of actions. It may be required due to the performance or avoidance of other behavioral acts. Speaking about what responsibility is, it is necessary to mention the negative consequences for the subject if he violates the established requirements. Its level may vary. It depends on the severity of the act committed, the consequences that arose as a result of the action/inaction.
Other definitions
The concept of responsibility is closely related to the personality of the subject. This characteristic describes a person’s ability to thoroughly analyze a particular situation and anticipate the consequences of their behavior. At the same time, the person chooses the form of his actions and must be ready to accept the results of the choice as inevitably accomplished facts. A number of authors, explaining what responsibility is, talk about the desire of the subject to evaluate the consequences of the actions that he plans to commit.
Interpretation in ethics
What is responsibility in an ethical sense? It represents reliability, honesty towards oneself and other subjects. It expresses the willingness and awareness to recognize that the result (reaction) that an individual receives from his actions is the consequence of these actions. In this case, responsibility is not guilt, but confidence. It involves individual accountability and the ability to engage in ethical behavior for one's own benefit and for the benefit of others within an established system.
Specifics
When explaining what responsibility is, researchers in scientific publications most often use terms such as sanity and accountability. In the legal literature, this phenomenon is considered mainly from the perspective of punishability. In practice, according to a number of authors, such a one-sided study of responsibility leads to significant deformations in the field of regulation of social relations. Foreign theory and practice, in addition to the indicated interpretations, provide more meanings. Among them, in particular, accuracy, responseability, dependence, certainty, and so on.
Classification
The term was first introduced by Alfred Bahn. He interpreted the concept in terms of punishability. For a long period, this problem was the subject of discussion among legal scholars exclusively in this aspect. Modern legal theory divides responsibility into positive and negative. The first is formed from a positive behavior model. It assumes useful functions for society. Its implementation takes place in regulatory relations. In them, the obligated subject is in a position of control and accountability. Negative liability arises from violations of regulations. In this case, the subject is subject to certain sanctions, and unfavorable consequences arise for the perpetrator. This classification made it possible to identify two sides of legal responsibility:
- Prospective. It occurs for the intended or committed proactive, active activity in accordance with the status to achieve certain goals.
- Retrospective. Such liability arises as a result of violations.
Property liability
It is divided into general and special. The first is provided for in the Civil Code, the second - in the Labor Code, charters of enterprises and other regulations. Material (special) liability of employees and workers, acting as a compensatory legal institution, can be used together with other types of punishment. The application of sanctions is allowed subject to 4 conditions:
1. The presence of documented proven damage that is subject to compensation:
Loss of valuables;
Additional expenses, payment for work to eliminate any adverse consequences;
Lost income due to culpable behavior.
2. Illegal actions/inactions.
3. The presence of a causal relationship between illegal behavior and the resulting consequences.
4. Guilt of the subject whose actions/inactions caused the damage.
Features of collection
In all of these cases, property liability can be applied in a “gentle” manner. For example, the judicial authority is able to reduce the amount of compensation for harm caused depending on the financial situation of the perpetrator. When collecting, the plaintiff himself can reduce the value of the claim or abandon it altogether. So he releases the guilty person from responsibility. The marital status of the defendant is also important. This is especially true for cases of recovery of damages from an employee of an enterprise.
Administrative penalties
The current codes provide for different sanctions for certain violations. Criminal liability is considered the most severe. The Code of Administrative Offenses establishes punishments for subjects who have committed administrative violations. They recognize the guilty behavior of an organization or individual, for which the code provides for sanctions. The main signs of an administrative offense are:
- Act. It is an act of conscious, volitional behavior. It is expressed in the form of action (for example, smoking in the wrong place) or inaction (for example, failure to appear at a court hearing for jury duty).
- Antisocial character. It is expressed in an encroachment on the interests of the citizen, society, and state. A generalized list is given in Art. 1.2 of the code.
- Guilt is a construct similar to criminal law. It includes intent and negligence.
- Illegality. It is expressed in a situation in which the object of encroachment represents a specific value for society, the individual and the state and is protected by law.
When considering an administrative offense, the concept of punishability becomes important. If available, the sanction acts as an established state measure of responsibility for the act.
Types of punishment
The list of penalties is established by Art. 3.2 Code of Administrative Offences. The following may apply to the perpetrator:
- Warning. It is a formal censure, given in writing as prescribed by law.
- Fine. This sanction is expressed in a monetary amount, the amount of which is determined by a specific article that establishes liability for a specific violation.
- Confiscation of a weapon or object. A forcibly taken thing that was used in the commission of an offense or became the subject of an attack.
- Deprivation of special rights granted to an individual (for example, to drive vehicles, hunt, and so on).
- Arrest. Within the framework of the Code of Administrative Offences, this measure provides for keeping the perpetrator in isolation for 15 days. In case of violation of the state of emergency or the regime in the zone of the counter-terrorism operation - up to 30 days.
- Expulsion from the Russian Federation of a stateless person or a foreigner.
- Disqualification. It represents the deprivation of the offender’s right to hold certain positions (to be on the board of directors, to perform activities related to the management of the organization, etc.).
- Prohibition on attending official sporting events on the days of the event.
- Suspension of activities.
The problem of responsibility
10.06.2015Snezhana Ivanova
Responsibility is an important link in the formation and development of any personality. Responsibility means...
Responsibility is an important link in the formation and development of any personality. Responsibility is understood as the conscious fulfillment of the requirements placed on a person. The implementation of specific tasks occurs through volitional effort, deliberate concentration on the result of a particular activity. A responsible person always worries about the consequences of decisions made and is guided in his activities by a rational approach. No matter how the external conditions develop, a person who takes full responsibility for what is happening will always act for the benefit of the situation and the people around him, without forgetting himself.
Concept of responsibility
The concept of responsibility is familiar to each of us from childhood. Parents always strive to teach their child proper behavior in society, so they try to instill in him the rules of decent behavior from a very early age. We live in society, and whether we like it or not, we are forced to contact it every day. Other people are not always polite and do not always understand us. The responsibility that is assigned to each of the participants in the interaction is individual and specific in its own way. For example, if a student at school did not prepare his homework, he should understand that the consequence of his action could be a bad grade. If an adult commits a rash act that is contrary to public morality and his own moral values, he will be responsible both to people and to his own conscience. The concept of responsibility includes the following components.
Personal responsibility
It implies following individual guidelines, implementing plans and aspirations. In this case, the individual himself determines what he will be responsible for, what exactly his task is. Personal responsibility can also be expressed in the fact that a person takes on a certain role in society and sets a goal that he intends to achieve within a set time frame. In this case, he bears personal responsibility for taking actions to improve or develop a specific situation. A person gives his word and remains true to it. Otherwise, he may lose his positive reputation.
Collective responsibility
It implies that an individual is included in the social system in advance. He is a link in a huge chain that creates movement towards the chosen goal. Collective responsibility imposes equal rights and responsibilities on every member of society. A specific person becomes an active mechanism in such a system, although he can lead it in individual cases. Here it is possible to “blur” the boundaries between the individuality of its participants, since the effectiveness of the efforts made for a socially useful cause comes to the fore.
How responsibility is formed
Each person joins the team quite early. From childhood we are taught that we cannot live outside of society. Sometimes it becomes especially dangerous to have your own opinion if it goes against the principles of public morality and the principles of what a person should be. A person, entering society, from the very beginning learns to live by its rules, gradually learning what is good and what is bad. Accordingly, the behavior of the individual changes: he can no longer behave as freely as he did before, but is forced to adapt to the requirements of the collective and take on the appropriate role. The responsibility in this case is to fit adequately into society and not lose your individuality.
The problem of responsibility
The problem of responsibility occupies an extremely important position in personality psychology. In terms of significance, it affects the deep aspects of the formation and development of an individual. This problem has several structural components.
Why doesn't everyone take responsibility?
If we consider responsibility as a conscious desire to fulfill one’s obligations to society and oneself, then it turns out that first an individual needs to cultivate a strong will in himself. Only that person can not deviate from responsibility who knows and understands its true price. It is much easier to try to avoid imposing any obligations than to bear the burden of responsibility. This character quality brings additional worries and obligations to the individual. However, at the same time, responsibility helps to become a disciplined person, to cultivate firmness and the right qualities of character.
If a child is still to some extent excusable for not fulfilling this promise, then an adult will be asked much more severely for his offense, and the consequences of such a mistake may be more serious. A person who does not want to take responsibility cannot be considered fully mature and independent in society. Such people are more often than others subject to condemnation from others, rejection of actions and actions. There is an unspoken rule in society that those who make mistakes must certainly come to the realization of their wrongness.
What is the true responsibility of the individual?
People often confuse blind adherence to someone else’s will, complete submission to the team, and loss of one’s opinion with responsibility. This is an absolute fallacy. A responsible person will never commit an act that is contrary to social norms, but he himself will not suffer any damage. Responsibility presupposes the assumption of certain obligations and the subsequent preservation of oneself, one’s essence in these circumstances. There are such concepts as freedom of choice, responsibility to oneself and other people. The first includes the ability to act according to one's internal attitudes and beliefs. The second concept is based on being able to make decisions that would help develop and improve one’s own personality. Finally, the third concept is related to the ability to make decisions regarding interaction with others and adjust one’s actions. True responsibility always presupposes a sound mind and the ability to quickly find a way out of difficult situations.
How is responsibility related to freedom?
Many philosophers since ancient times have asked this difficult question. They thought about what freedom is, can a person be free to the end or is this just the deepest delusion, an appearance?
Responsibility helps develop discipline. Anyone who is aimed at achieving any result, as a rule, does not retreat from difficulties and does not look for easy ways. Freedom in this case acts as a kind of motivating link, an attitude that helps to act in accordance with a given direction. A person takes the necessary steps of his own free will, and realizes the importance and significance of this decision. Even if at the moment he doesn’t feel like doing anything at all, he will take his will into his fist and focus on the task at hand. It was not uncommon for people with a high fever or feeling unwell to show up at work because they were unable to take sick leave. They were aware of a greater degree of responsibility to society and strived to be useful. If a person decides to develop his best qualities of character, talents and abilities, this can also be called freedom and responsibility. Any responsibility presupposes the presence of a conscious desire for any activity, the formation of motivation and an attitude towards its implementation.
How to develop responsibility
There is no need to prove why responsibility is so important in life. No specialist can do without responsibility if he considers his activity to be at least somewhat serious and intends to engage in it for a long time. What steps need to be taken in order to cultivate enormous willpower in oneself, to train the desire to be useful to oneself and society as a whole? The recommendations below will help you create responsibility for a certain time period.
Awareness of a strong need
Nothing motivates you more than knowing that no one else will take responsibility for you. You are responsible for your life yourself and you can either waste it in vain or make it as useful as possible in all respects. Things won’t get done on their own if you don’t put any effort into it. When a clear understanding comes that we ourselves are responsible for our actions and partly for the events that take place, we don’t want to look for someone to blame. A mature person will not shirk responsibility. Usually, someone who has realized the need for something is already ready to go all the way to victorious achievements. At this stage, the formation of individuality, personality development and self-improvement take place.
Activity planning
Whatever you do, any activity requires a responsible and disciplined approach. You can’t work carelessly just to get rid of an unpleasant responsibility. Every activity must be carefully planned. If the amount of work is too large, then it is necessary to break it down into smaller components. It is much easier to do voluminous work in parts than in whole. But for this you need to approach the planning process competently.
Try to immediately clearly define the time frame within which you are going to work. If the boundaries are too short, then you will have to work harder every day. It is better that you have two to three additional free days. If unforeseen circumstances arise (and they can happen at the most unexpected moment), you will know that you have time for everything. And this is important, believe me, especially when it comes to urgent and serious work.
Never put everything off until the last day. Believe me, in three days or even a week you will not be in the mood to complete the project you started. Plus, nervous tension will be added to everything and you will worry that you don’t have time. Leaving the hardest part for the last day is the same as putting yourself in an awkward position, and even making it an intention. Such experiences take a lot of strength and energy from a person, after which it will take time to recover from mental stress. Do everything in advance and you won’t have to worry anymore.
Predicting results
Responsibility presupposes the ability to build a future perspective in activities. A disciplined person, one way or another, foresees certain results of his work. Therefore, calculating the amount of activity for each day is not very difficult. The ability to foresee the final goal helps prevent possible mistakes that may occur if a person relies on a favorable opportunity. Forecasting the results will help you gather yourself at the moment when fatigue overcomes you, and will free up the forces that are in reserve to put them to use. By accepting responsibility for everything that happens, a person learns to analyze his work and improve.
Don't give up on your goal
Sometimes it happens that some task causes numerous difficulties. In this case, it is necessary to study all existing aspects as soon as possible in order to prevent a possible error. If you have started an activity with which you have certain obligations, never back down. In the most difficult situations, ask for help, but do not shy away from solving the problem. Your future activities depend on which behavior you choose. The feeling of victory brings with it confidence in one's own capabilities.
Thus, responsibility is closely related to the individual’s self-awareness, the ability to overcome difficulties, and determination. By reaching certain heights in a particular activity, a person trains his will.