INTRODUCTION It is a prevailing assumption among both philosophers that having an accurate belief of our self and the world is important. On the topic of free will and moral responsibility, Strawson argues for the pessimist viewpoint while Susan argues for the compatibilist viewpoint.
A clear formulation of the problem that Strawson and Wolf are discussing
STRAWSON
Galen Strawson is not easily a hard determinist. His position is that free will and ultimate moral responsibility is certainly impossible weather determinism is true or false. Strawson does not state that free will is impossible because determinism is true. However, he does think that free will is incompatible with determinism. Nonetheless, he equally thinks that it is incompatible with indeterminism. His argument for
…show more content…
When analyzing the problem of free will, one must consider the notion of ‘responsibility’.
Topic sentence 1: Strawson’s position
Focusing on Strawson’s position on the notion of free will, he points out the argument of the pessimists, who believe that the reason why one can be responsible for what one does is because one’s self is sometime independent of one’s general mental state (). Strawson debunks this by presenting the fact that they are not recognizing the importance of the self or “the agent self”. He states,
“The truth is that nothing can give us what we think we want, and ordinarily think we have. We cannot be morally responsible, in the absolute, buck-stopping way in which we often unreflectively think we are. We cannot have "strong" free will of the kind that we would need to have, in order to be morally responsible in this way” (…).
1. But self-origination is the only thing that could actually ground the kind of strong free will that is regularly believed
In this essay, I will argue that though Strawson’s Basic Argument is sound, society has constructed a more applicable version of the term “acting morally responsible” which holds us all accountable for our actions. Firstly, I will provide a brief overview of the Basic Argument as well as distinguish between Strawson’s and society’s definitions of being morally responsible. Secondly, I will justify Strawson’s first premise. Finally, I will raise and refute the response of author Ian McEwan.
...flective capacity is constrained by external forces then they are not free. So, Frankfurt’s account of free will is unsatisfactory because it misses out something important – an agent’s reflective ability.
One possible vulnerability to the argument is that for this all to play out, the use of free will would have to non-existential, on the basis that all our actions and choices are kind of pre-made based on who we are and how we are at that moment. With this, the debate would be crumbled under any hypothetical circumstance that free will is a possibility, due to the fact that free will would not be based on whom we are or how we were raised, but solely on how we feel at given moment of time and all the factors that contribute to possible affecting out decision. Though it is not possible to clearly determine whether free will really exists or whether it is an illusion, we cannot 100% say that Strawson’s basic argument is correct or valid, but due to those exact reasons, we cannot conclude that it is invalid though what I talk about is more based upon which way sways in the favor od Strawson due to his argument having a very valid-like structure, with all the premises being more or less true. This in terms leads to a true conclusion, if the argument is truly
In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that this problem can be dissolved by the clarification of language usage and the clarification of what freedom is in relationship to those things that oppose freedom or restrain it. In either case, what is at stake is the free will of an agent, and whether or not that agent is morally responsible. What is to be seen from a discussion of these arguments is the applicability and validity of these two philosophies to situations where one must make a choice, and whether or not that person is acting freely and is thus responsible given his current situation. In this vein, the case of Socrates’ imprisonment and whether or not he acted freely in respect to his decision to leave or stay in prison can be evaluated by the discussion of the arguments presented in respect to the nature of free will in its reconciliation with determinism in the compatibilist vein and its absence in the causality of hard determinism.
Earl Rochester’s argument is to make drinking a privilege to say, with a drinking license. This will require a “drinker’s ed class,” because it's just like driver’s ed, you have to read a manual and then take a written test what will be next a drinking portion to see if you can handle this “privilege.” I strongly disagree with Mr. Rochester not because I believe in underage drinking or alcoholism but because of the mere fact that this drinking license will not help since no matter what obstacles adolescents and alcoholics will find a way to get their hands on alcohol.
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.
P. F. Strawson was an English philosopher that fought strongly for the idea of compatibilism. Compatibilist see that libertarian free will and hard determinism are extremely different and there must be a compromise. Free will says that a human's actions are freely decided by the agent, while hard determinism argues that all past events will determine what is to come in the future. Compatibilism believe that in a mix of both libertarian free will and hard determinism. This is also known as soft determinism. The ideology of compatibilism says that both an action is determined, that is, that it must happen, but it can also be self-determined. But, where do we draw the line? What parts of our life are determined for us? What actions do we decide? These are all questions that come up for those who argue against
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”( Douglass). This famous quote epitomizes the philosophies of Frederick Douglass, in which he wanted everyone to be treated with dignity; if everyone was not treated with equality, no one person or property would be safe harm. His experience as a house slave, field slave and ship builder gave him the knowledge to develop into a persuasive speaker and abolitionist. In his narrative, he makes key arguments to white abolitionist and Christians on why slavery should be abolished. The key arguments that Frederick Douglass tries to vindicate are that slavery denies slaves of their identity, slavery is also detrimental for the slave owner, and slavery is ungodly.
As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsible for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualifies as a human act. The Libertarian view consists of one’s actions not being determined; however, have free will, which is a precondition for moral responsibility. Basically put, human acts are not determined by precedent causes. Libertarianism is one of the views under incompatibilism along with Hard Determinism. The opposite of these views is Compatibilism.
Furthermore, free will has been closely connected to the moral responsibility, in that one acts knowing they will be res for their own actions. There should be philosophical conditions regarding responsibility such like the alternatives that one has for action and moral significance of those alternatives. Nevertheless, moral responsibility does not exhaust the implication of free will.
Singer presents that one’s attitude to the unavoidable creates free will. The conscious choice to not be influenced by the inexplicable of life and maintain a positive outlook give one the necessary choice for free will to exist. Free will, he argues, is largely a matter of attitude. Though Gimpel’s outlook does depend on a strong faith, with it, most of the things that are outside of Gimpel’s control become insignificant. He cannot control his wife’s infidelity but with his outlook, such things don’t matter. At every step, one is able to make the choice to either let the external forces influence your behavior and feeling or consciously know that such forces are just a part of life and continue with your
“There is a continuum between free and unfree, with many or most acts lying somewhere in between.” (Abel, 322) This statement is a good summation of how Nancy Holmstrom’s view of free will allows for degrees of freedom depending on the agent’s control over the situation. Holmstrom’s main purpose in her Firming Up Soft Determinism essay was to show that people can have control over the source of their actions, meaning that people can have control over their desires and beliefs, and because of this they have free will. She also tried to show that her view of soft determinism was compatible with free will and moral responsibility. While Holmstrom’s theory about the self’s being in control, willingness to participate, and awareness of an act causes the act to be free, has some merit, her choice to incorporate soft determinism ultimately proved to invalidate her theory.
In Roderick Chisholm’s essay Human Freedom and the Self he makes the reader aware of an interesting paradox which is not normally associated with the theory of free will. Chisholm outlines the metaphysical problem of human freedom as the fact that we claim human beings to be the responsible agents in their lives yet this directly opposes both the deterministic (that every action was caused by a previous action) and the indeterministic (that every act is not caused by anything in particular) view of human action. To hold the theory that humans are the responsible agents in regards to their actions is to discredit hundreds of years of philosophical intuition and insight.
Free will is the ability to act out of one's own volition; to make a choice where you could have possible chosen to do something else. Freedom is being able to act in a way that is not predetermined. There are 3 broad philosophical approaches to the concept of free will. Firstly, hard determinism, which states that we have no free will and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. Secondly, we have soft determinism (compatibilism), which says that both determinism and free will are true and so we can be held morally responsible. And thirdly, libertarianism, which says that we do have free will so we can held morally responsible. Each approach using a different understanding of how free we really are and how much moral responsibility we have. There is an important relationship between free will and moral responsibility, it is generally thought that we can be held morally responsible for actions that we freely perform. I will be presenting the 3 approaches and argue for why hard determinism is true- that we are not free and cannot be held morally responsible for our actions.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).