Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Personal responsibility examples
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Harry G. Frankfurt presents her main thesis on ‘’Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility’’ by claiming that the principle of alternate possibilities is false, because he believes that a person is morally responsible for what he did, only if he could not behave otherwise. Frankfurt ensures that what this principle is establishing is an illusion, morally speaking. He continues his statement, arguing that it is not valid to think that the circumstances that led a person to do something turn it impossible to avoid doing so, because for example a person can do something because circumstances prevented him from doing anything else, and that does not mean that the circumstances have been the reason of his acting. In order to analyse deeply …show more content…
So, is Jones morally responsible for what he does? Frankfurt describes three different ways to play the role and reaction to the situation: 1. Indifference: Jones does what he does regardless of the situation and its decision is expected to act as the menacing, but because he already made a decision. Therefore it was not the threat that led him to act, it was his decision. In this case there is moral responsibility and no coercion. 2. Hasty decision: Jones did what he was asked for fear because he was extremely terrified thinking only of the threat, that is to say, he decided for his own reasons (fear). So, in this case, there is moral responsibility because the reason is not coercion. 3. Surprise: The threat impressed him but he had already decided to do what was asked. So he was not motivated by the threat (not coercion), because he acted on his own decision, that is to say, he is subjected to moral …show more content…
If the person is threatened to suffer punishment, and he is terrified by the punishment, this does not mean that "could not have done otherwise," there is still the possibility that defied the threat and receive punishment (decision). This is not contrary to the principle, because the principle absolves someone of responsibility, in the case that the person could not have done otherwise. In this case he may decide to do something else, so the subject is immersed in the principle of alternative possibilities, acquiring the moral responsibility for his actions, because he could have done otherwise. So, clearly, the moral responsibility is cancelled only when the person doesn’t do the action on their own. As Frankfurt, I also think that the principle should be re-routed in order to the moral responsibility can be cancelled only if the person acted because he could not do otherwise. This new direction is not inconsistent if we hold that, being consequential with the previous approach, there is correlation between moral responsibility and determinism. This idea is supported because if there was causal determination for an action done by one person, then it is correct to say that the person acted in consequence of the causes that
In “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”, Harry Frankfurt attempts to falsify the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the principle where a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. A person would be morally responsible for their own actions if done by themselves. If someone else had forced that person to do the action, then the person doing the action is not morally responsible. Frankfurt does not believe this to be true and that the person doing the action is morally responsible. Frankfurt’s objections towards the Principle of Alternate Possibilities shows the refutation of natural intuition and places moral responsibility upon those who deserve it.
Clifford makes a very strong and valid case for justifying every decision, regardless of how insignificant. Using his view of thinking, it is easy to understand why everyone has a moral right to justify decisions. Without the cooperation of society in making every decision a justified one, it is useless to hold someone accountable for an immoral belief.
Rossian Pluralism claims that there are multiple things that we have basic, intrinsic moral reason to do, which he names as the prima facie duties. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow under all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject upon reflection of their circumstances. This moral theory has faced criticisms, most strongly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not.
The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.
middle of paper ... ... Essentially, the only fault being addressed is the conflicting action, as a conflict no longer occurs. Objections remain based on the inclusion of moral agents exclusively and the promotion of an individual’s goals, while introducing the additional problem of self-interest that accompanies prominent autonomy. The theory remains at fault, as it cannot be adequately amended by a single change.
Frankfurtean compatibilism provides a more refined model than Humean compatibilism. Humean compatibilism has denied the deterministic notion of freedom-the ability to have chosen otherwise. Hume then provides a new definition of freedom, as “a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will” (“Of Liberty and Necessity”, 23). In Hume’s view, as long as we act according to our desires and belief, we are exercising freedom of will and freedom of action. Frankfurt adds a further distinction within our desires, and concludes that our will is free if and only if we act on a first-order desire determined by our second-order desire. An agent’s will, defined by Frankfurt, is “the notion of an effective desire-one that moves (or will or would move) a ...
He states, “A person may well be morally responsible for what he has done even though he could not have done otherwise”. Frankfurt defends the idea that one must be morally responsible in some sense rather than just blaming the past, in a rather pessimistic manner. He also suggests that you are not responsible if you could not have avoided the situation and decision that you made. In Harris’s case, Frankfurt would say that Harris could be held responsible for his actions even though there is a possibility that Harris could not have acted otherwise. In P.F. Strawson’s essay “Freedom and Resentment”, he states, “This is that the notions of moral guilt, of blame, of moral responsibility are inherently confused and that we can see this to be so if we consider the consequences either of the truth of determinism or of its falsity” (72). Whether or not you one has the ability to control their actions, they still have the freedom to express feelings and emotions subsequent to their determined actions. We experience consequences in regards to our actions and most would even say morally
... were against gods will and immoral. Jones also abused his followers physically and emotionally. Jones inability to treat his problem affected his capacity to effectively serve his followers and reach the goals he set for his congregation. The most extreme example of unethical behavior is when he issued his followers to kill Congressman Leo Ryan from leaving Jonestown, Guyana in order to prevent some of his followers from leaving and the potential for government interference with his commune. Jones was able to manipulate his followers into believing that his congregation would change the world but his inability to act ethically and effectively led to his downfall.
This was, however, not the only factor to be looked after. What options they had does not dictate the morality of an act, it is only one part of a larger whole. Law is, in itself, morality, by nature of the fact that to defy law results in chaos. Originally the law was created to serve as a means of carrying out Justice, but the sheer nature of the fact that it has since, as in this case, acted in some way other than to uphold such a concept proves that it is a separate entity unto itself. Rather than considering the morality of a decision in the administering of Justice, it is now reasonable and required to consider the law as a factor in determining the morality of a decision. When the virtue of the decision is determined, then can Justice, and thus punishment, be considered. It is important to understand this concept: law is no longer a means of carry...
much to have the courage to oppose Mr. Jones. I now am sure Mr. Jones’
In Intro to Ethics, we have discussed each moral theory in the context of how the theories dealt with the theory of right conduct and with the deontic status the action had. When we looked at how each theory we talked about dealt with deontic status, we looked at how the actions were right or wrong. The main theories we looked at this semester that dealt with right conduct were utilitarianism, Kant’s moral theory, and virtue ethics. Although each of these moral theories has its own flaws, I believe that Kant’s moral theory is the strongest and most superior out of all the moral theories.
According to Drolet, Marie-Josée, and Anne Hudon (p.51), two main theories attempt to explain in depth and justify moral laws and principles; utilitarianism and deontological theories. Jeremy Bentham and John Mill developed the theory of utilitarianism while Immanuel Kant developed the deontological theory. These two theories are based on how the consequences of a given act impact on an individual. The deontological theory is based on the one’s moral judgment rather than the set rules and regulations. On the other hand, the utilitarianism theory focuses on the consequences of a given deed. This paper primarily focuses on how a strict utilitarian and a strict deontologist would respond to George’s scenario. The arguments will be based on the
However, in order for her thesis to be correct, the Bystander at the Switch case must always be morally permissible. There should be no situation in which it is morally impermissible to kill the one and save the five. If there were such a situation, where both parts of Thomson’s thesis remained true but it would still be morally impermissible to kill the one because of some outside factor, then Thomson’s thesis would no longer be the complete answer.
Jim Jones is known today for the cruel and unlawful acts he forced upon hundreds of innocent people. This date in history “remains the only time in which a U.S. congressman was killed in the line of duty.” “On November 18, 1978, People’s Temple leader Jim Jones” ordered an abundance of people to commit a “suicide act” by drinking poisoned fruit punch (Rosenberg).
In 1977, many concerned family members approached the media and local politicians voicing their concerns that their family members were being held against their will in Jonestown through systematic brainwashing. Arguably, the most deviant preaching of Jones was the idea of revolutionary suicide. Jones would often share his belief that you were “better off dead and protest the unjust conditions of the world than to get destroyed by the hands of their enemies by murder and incarceration.”