The relationship of human rights and freedoms in the context of justice

Ismailov Nurmagomed Omarovich ORCID: 0000-0003-4935-4902 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor of the Department of Humanities of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 49/2 Leningradsky Prospekt str., office 0617, Moscow, 125167, Russia NOIsmailov@fa.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

This work is a further addition and development of certain provisions set out by us in earlier works, taking into account new realities ^{[5, 6, 7]}. The problem of human and civil rights and freedoms, the issues of the realization of freedom in the economic, political and spiritual spheres of public life have acquired special relevance in the life of modern society. And the growing interest in this problem in the social sciences is natural. Special attention to it is manifested in social and political philosophy, philosophy of law. The issues related to this problem must be considered in the context of the category of social justice, because they constitute an important aspect of understanding this category.

However, initially we will outline our understanding of the concept of social justice, and only after that we will proceed to the study of the issues outlined here in the context of this concept. Social justice is, as we believe, first of all, the human right to free work, free activity in general and the creation of appropriate conditions in society for such activities. This understanding and definition of social justice is fundamental in our views on this concept. This primary interpretation of social justice differs from other traditional definitions of it. It is also the correspondence between work and reward, deed and retribution.

The purpose of our work is to identify the interrelationship and interdependence of human rights and freedoms in various spheres of society. Political rights and freedoms of a person, or spiritual freedom, can be more fully explored only in unity with economic freedom, in the context of the economic opportunities of an individual, a social group and society as a whole.

The problem that we want to identify in the article is that the possible opinion that the understanding and realization of rights and freedoms, for example, in the political sphere are possible without taking into account the state in other spheres of human activity, is erroneous. Of course, one can explore, for example, the problem of human political rights and freedoms outside the context of the economic realities of a given society. However, such a study cannot be complete. However, the researcher may pursue the goal of a narrower study of the problem, when he may be more interested, for example, in freedom of speech, or freedom of thought, etc. Of course, we do not pretend in this work to comprehensively identify the identified problem. But for us, an integrated approach to issues related to this problem is more important.

Research methodology

The main point of the methodological framework used by us in this work is the need to study any social problem, including the problem we have identified here, in the unity of all spheres of public life, their interrelationship and interdependence.

We use the principle of development as a methodological basis for the study of the relationship and interdependence of human rights and freedoms in the context of justice. According to this principle, human rights and freedoms should be explored in formation, change and development. Considering this phenomenon in society historically, we can better understand the state of this problem in modern realities.

We also use an axiological approach, revealing a person's attitude to his rights and freedoms in the context of the values of this society.

Assessing the phenomena of public life, we use the criterion of practice, that is, we take into account how much the level of rights and freedoms in a given society in real practice allows it to function more successfully.

One of the main provisions of our work is the need for a given society to have not only formal, but also de facto equality of all before the law, which we consider to be one of the main guarantors of the realization of social justice, rights and freedoms.

The results of the study

Freedom is the right of an individual to do absolutely everything for the sake of achieving his own goals that does not contradict the just interests of others.

The issue we have raised necessarily requires the definition of a measure of freedom, a measure of rights and freedoms in various spheres of human activity and society. In this regard, we point out that, according to our views, we see justice as a measure of freedom in human life, all his rights and freedoms. The freedom of an individual or any subject of public life should be consistent with the concept of justice, it should be fair. In the subordination of these categories, we give priority to justice. The rights and freedoms of man and citizen must have a fair measure. However, the dynamics of public life presupposes a constant expansion of this measure.

A theoretical study of justice leads to the conclusion that in a society where the measure of human rights and freedoms was at a very low level, it should not be increased abruptly to too high a level. J. J. Rousseau warned the authorities against such a sharp increase in the level of freedom for people who are not used to such a level. He believed that a high measure of freedom contributes to a more successful life of reasonable and responsible individuals, but only worsens the vital activity of individuals who are not very reasonable, irresponsible, those who are unable to realize the need to adhere to a certain measure of freedom ^{[13, p. 33]}. The art of managing society does not imply abrupt transitions in public policy from excessive rigor to too much indulgence for the people. Such a policy contributes to a sharp weakening of power and degradation of society, F. believed. Bacon ^{[3, p. 392]}.

A fair measure of human rights and freedoms in any sphere of society should initially be interpreted in the context of natural human rights to life, freedom and property obtained through personal labor efforts. However, based on the dialectical interpretation of the truth, we also note the conditionality of this measure given the historical realities of society, its capabilities.

We see the fundamental function of the state in providing its citizens with the opportunity to use their already existing natural rights, in ensuring legal order and security for them. In a fair and legal state, a person can have a legally guaranteed opportunity to do his own business and pay taxes provided for by law. And it is the state that guarantees such conditions for him. The main guarantor of freedom in this situation is law ^{[5, p. 36]}. In this regard, we can agree with researchers who believe that in modern society, positive law based on natural law serves as a factor of stability and justice ^{[2, p. 7]}.

But if we consider the problem of rights and freedoms in the context of social justice in its formation and development, that is, historically, we regret to point out that not at all historical stages of the development of society, the state could provide its citizens with such rights and freedoms. These were the historical realities. In the history of various societies, there have been situations when historical necessity required the restriction of certain rights. For example, the possibilities of implementing social justice are often limited by the economic possibilities of a given society. This is the dialectic of the spheres of public life. Considering the historical development of society, it can be stated that there are more and more objective opportunities to provide a person with a higher level of rights and freedoms. S. G. Moskalenko points to the fact that the state and society in historical development "are moving from chaos and blurred forms to ordered structurality, to the distinctness of form formation and hierarchical organization of civilizational cultural-historical and political-legal matter" ^{[12, p. 215]}. It is also possible to refer to the views of D. Locke, who noted that human freedom in the state is possible only within the framework of subordination to legislative power ^{[4, 10, p. 274]}.

As you know, nature has its own laws, which are objective in nature. A person cannot cancel them, cannot ignore them, but he is able to know them. This also applies to the life of society. That is, an adequate reflection of the vital activity of society presupposes the comprehension of its objective laws, from which follows the relationship of freedom and responsibility of any subject of public life for their actions.

A fair measure of freedom in a particular society presupposes legally fixed human obligations regarding the just interests of other people. The moral norms of this society should also contribute to this. Also, at the state level, a policy is needed to form an appropriate moral consciousness and legal awareness, an appropriate worldview. An important role in solving this problem is assigned to political measures and legal regulation on the impact on the life of society, but also to the moral education of the individual. Some researchers legitimately point out the important role of the moral and humanistic vector of society's development, which is able to prevent the decline in the importance of human life in the modern world ^{[1, p. 71]}.

At the same time, the practical provision of a fair measure of rights and freedoms presupposes the formation of a truly legal state, which contains as mandatory elements not only rights and freedoms in all spheres of its life, but also corresponding duties and responsibility for its actions.

Based on the basic principles of dialectics, we consider the measure of freedom, which clearly differs at different historical stages in different societies, to be justified and fair. This follows from the statement about the concreteness of the truth. A given people may have this measure determined, among other things, historically. The main determinants of this level are the economic capabilities of a given society, political, legal, and moral traditions that have historically developed in it. For example, one of the serious obstacles to the expansion of this measure may be the lack of democratic traditions in this society, a low level of legal awareness and political culture.

Not every person is able to adequately manage the freedom granted to him. For some individuals, it turns out to be overestimated and "stupefies" them. There may be situations when a person is not prepared for this inflated level in terms of worldview. There may also be a situation where a person fears responsibility for the measure of freedom provided. He voluntarily agrees to be led and place the burden of responsibility for the fateful decisions of his life on others ^{[5, p. 37]}. It is in such cases that a social phenomenon can take place, which Erich Fromm characterized as an escape from freedom ^[14].

If we strictly adhere to theoretical provisions in understanding justice, then we note that the measure of responsibility should be indicated not only in formal legal equality, as some researchers may believe, but, as we reasonably believe, also in the actual equality of all citizens before the law. Because formally equal citizens may have different opportunities to use legal guarantees. At the same time, the responsibility of the members of this society cannot but depend on the degree of development of consciousness of society as a whole. And this point should be taken into account when drafting legal norms and conducting appropriate state policy. It is also determined by various kinds of relationships that have historically developed in this society.

If we try to define freedom and social justice in relation to the political and legal sphere, then the most important components of this definition should be expressed in the real right of participation of citizens of the country in matters related to its governance. At the same time, such political rights may be based on the right of ownership. In the absence of property rights, political rights by themselves do not provide full-fledged freedom. The existence of property rights contributes to the development of true democracy, a more adequate expression of the will of the masses ^{[7, p. 140]}. This situation necessarily follows from the dialectics of various spheres of society.

Here we will make an important clarification. This implies the possibility of legal guarantees for a citizen to participate in the management of society, since not all citizens want to use such a legally guaranteed right, either for fear of liability or for other reasons. The famous Russian philosopher V. V. Mironov rightly believes that a person can be considered a "political being" as soon as "he begins to function as a subject of public life" ^{[11, p. 69]}. We will accept this provision. But let's ask ourselves a rhetorical question, whether a person can be considered a full-fledged subject of public life, a full-fledged "political being" if he does not want to be an active subject of political processes, even often not wanting to take part in political elections, does not want to take part in solving crucial public issues.

The political and legal institutions of a given society should conduct their activities solely for the sake of ensuring the well-being of their citizens and expressing their just interests. It should also be considered a form of social injustice, the policy of the state infringing on the interests of its citizens in order to express their (hardware) interests. In such recent situations as we have outlined, even theoretically, a tendency to tyranny is possible.

In the historical practice of different countries, there have been situations of a person's inability to be an active subject of socio-political life due to excessive "guardianship" on the part of the state, various social and political institutions. The situation when a person is the object of such care does not contribute to the full realization of his personal potential.

According to our theoretical conclusions, any rights and freedoms in the political and spiritual spheres without freedom in the economic sphere cannot yet make a person truly fully free. This can only be an appearance of genuine freedom.

In a situation where broad strata of the people in real political practice are excluded from actual participation in government, do not have sufficient political rights and freedoms, but everyone has a real opportunity to freely engage in their business in the economic sphere, then, as a rule, they do not show their dissatisfaction too much. But when the people do not have economic freedom, while knowing that the political authorities use public goods in their own interests and have privileges, then this situation outrages the people as a manifestation of social injustice.

Genuine economic freedom allows a person to create a certain stock of decent living conditions for his existence, allows him not to be dependent on anyone financially. Economic opportunities allow a person to develop their abilities, increase knowledge, enrich themselves creatively, and to a greater extent also allow them to learn their true interests. Economic freedom can most likely enhance its role as a subject of social and political processes. Having property, a person is necessarily forced to be active in the political sphere, to use his political rights. Some authors emphasize the relationship between a person's economic freedom and the strengthening of his relations with the state, which qualitatively increases the level of his freedom ^{[9, p. 11]}.

Ensuring human rights and freedoms in the political sphere necessarily implies a guarantee of freedom of thought for him, freedom of the press, speech, political and moral beliefs, and religious beliefs. He should not be afraid of political persecution, legal punishment, or moral condemnation for his beliefs, unless these views offend the honor and dignity of others, for example, these views cannot be Nazi, racist, etc. According to justice, these rights and freedoms provide for legally established responsibility.

These rights and freedoms are also of high importance for the implementation of social justice in the spiritual sphere of human life. His most important rights include freedom of conscience, freedom of religious beliefs, because issues of religious faith and conscience are for him the domain of his personal beliefs and, according to social justice, should not be subject to legal laws, they are conditioned by natural law. Legal laws should apply only to specific acts of people who harm the just interests of others. John Rawls, a prominent representative of social and political philosophy, believed that a stable and just society initially presupposes equal rights and freedoms for all citizens divided by various religious, philosophical and moral views, if these views do not interfere with the realization of the legitimate interests of others ^{[15, p. 20]}.

Dialectically examining the vital activity of society, taking into account the interconnection of all its spheres, we conclude about the interrelation and interdependence of all human rights and freedoms, their legal support, duties and responsibilities in all spheres of human activity. However, the requirements of genuine social justice presuppose not only that a citizen receives a legally guaranteed opportunity to realize any benefits, but also his feasible participation in the struggle for compliance with the norms of justice of this society, for public interests ^{[6, p. 44]}.

The well-being of an individual is interdependent with the well-being of society. The implementation of the tasks outlined by us necessarily presupposes a certain level of political, legal and moral consciousness, a certain culture, and an appropriate worldview. Society and the state should take certain measures in this direction. Some people want to achieve social justice, especially in a situation where their own rights and freedoms are being infringed, but at the same time they do not want to make their own efforts to implement it, waiting for help from the authorities. However, "without the participation of an individual citizen in the realization of justice in society, with the "conspiracy of the indifferent," its implementation is impossible" ^{[5, p. 39]}. In legal terms, a person, in fairness, can hope for the help of the state and government structures in providing him with decent living conditions, but at the same time he does not have a moral right to these benefits if he does not make his own efforts for this.

Truly free people are characterized by civic responsibility, a high level of legal awareness and morality. One can agree with the views of A.M. Kovalev, who believes that the principle "there are no rights without duties, as well as vice versa" reflects the fact that "a person lives in society, forms part of a social whole and obeys this whole" ^{[8, p. 561]}.

Conclusion

Thus, the implementation of social justice in the life of society requires that citizens have economic freedom, rights and freedoms in the political and spiritual spheres, equal legal conditions for all activities, and their formal and actual equality in respect of legal responsibility. Solving these tasks also involves the active participation of citizens in the life of society. At the same time, various human rights and freedoms necessarily imply responsibility for their actions. This is a prerequisite for the full functioning and development of society.

The main conclusion of our work is the position on the interrelationship and interdependence of human political rights and freedoms in various spheres of public life. Human political rights and freedoms, or spiritual freedom, can be more fully understood and realized only in unity with economic freedom, in the context of the economic opportunities of an individual, a social group and society as a whole. With the historical development of society, society and the state, as well as various organizations representing the state, have more and more opportunities to provide citizens with a higher level of various rights and freedoms.