Freewill And Moral Responsibility In Response To Galen Strawson's Basic Argument

Freewill and Moral Responsibility in Response to Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument
Introduction
The main argument that Galen Strawson puts forward attempts to find the truth in that no agent can fulfill the demands for real moral responsibility. Strawson’s argument assumes that if an agent is totally morally responsible for his or her actions, the agent also has to bear the responsibility of his or her reasons for doing those actions. In this regard, Strawson finds it impossible for an agent to be responsible for his or her reasons arguing that this action calls for an unending regress of totally responsible decisions for the agent to bear the responsibility of his or her reasons. The thesis statement governing this paper argues that, Galen Strawson’s basic argument is hardly persuasive to individuals who oppose that an individual’s reasons are the cause of the individual’s action. In this regard, there is a high possibility that an agent can avoid the infinite regress threat especially in situations where two similar choices seem to explain each other. The paper will introduce the basic argument by which that Galen Strawson stands. An argument that opposes Strawson’s argument will follow and the next section will object the arguments that oppose Strawson’s argument. A conclusion that restates the thesis and one that sums up the whole argument in the paper will conclude the paper.
Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument
Strawson argues that there is a moral responsibility and freewill is inexistent. Strawson claims that most issues that are debated by freewill are not to be resolved until there is proof of the non-existence moral responsibility and freewill. The first simple idea that Strawson’s argument relies on is that to act freely is ...

... middle of paper ...

...o doing but also the things the agent consciously gives up in the process of committing to undertake a certain task. All in all, the main argument still stands that Galen Strawson’s basic argument is hardly persuasive to individuals who oppose that an individual’s reasons are the cause of the individual’s action. Therefore, there is a high possibility that an agent can avoid the infinite regress threat especially in situations where two similar choices seem to explain each other.

Works cited
Ginet, Carl. On Action. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Print.
Strawson, Galen. Freedom and Belief. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Clarendon Press, 1986. Print.
Strawson Galen. “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility." Philosophical Studies: An
International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1950. Print.