For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
To achieve this, Campbell first sets out the two pre-suppositions necessary to the Libertarian argument. Firstly, he defines which kind of freedom he is discussing when he speaks of free will. Campbell characterizes “the freedom at issue” as one that predominantly concerns a person’s inner acts and decisions (377). A person’s observable acts are important only as they show an inner “life of choice”(377). Therefore the moral freedom assumed is that freedom which concerns inner acts.
The second, and more complicated, of Campbell’s requirements is to define what constitutes a “free act.” There are two parts to this definition. The first necessitates “that the act must be one of which the person judged can be regarded as the sole author” (378). This point raises the question of how one can determine authorship. For certainly “the raw material of impulses and capacities that constitute [one’s] hereditary endowment” cannot be determined by the individual and surely have an impact on his inner acts (378). Further, the individual cannot control “the material and social environment in which he is destined to live” and these factors must influence his inner acts as well (378). Campbell allows that, while these aspects do have an impact on one’s inner acts, people in general “make allowances” for them, and still feel morally responsible for one’s self (378). In other words, one recognizes the effects of hereditary and environment on his inner acts, but acknowledges that his self can and should still be held morally responsible, as it can overcome these factors. Thus, Campbell claims, sole authorship of an act is possible. The second part of this definition of a “free act” requires that one could have acted otherwise because one could have chosen otherwise (380). With this final presupposition, Campbell states that an act is a free act if and only if...
... middle of paper ...
...” in that it is a “creative act of moral decision” and is only significant from the inner standpoint (387/389)). With these criticisms dispelled, Campbell can finally claim Libertarianism as the leading philosophical viewpoint.
With Campbell’s argument entirely laid out, the final question remains: is it sound? Based on the premises of his arguments as I see them, I believe I am safe in saying that yes, his argument is sound. Campbell has explained his premises clearly enough to persuade me into his manner of thinking. The only threat to his argument that I see lies in the his rebuttal of the meaninglessness criticism. I feel that he did not respond to this critique head on. Campbell claims that only the person making the moral choice can be aware of the reasons he made that choice. He, also, claimed that even a Determinist placed in a position of moral choice, has to be aware of his freedom of decision, but, if that is true, how do the advocates of meaninglessness fail to see the reason behind the choices they have made? This is the only point I am aware of that can jeopardize the soundness of Campbell’s argument. If he can explain this, he will have made a libertarian out of me.
Cultural Relativism is a moral theory which states that due to the vastly differing cultural norms held by people across the globe, morality cannot be judged objectively, and must instead be judged subjectively through the lense of an individuals own cultural norms. Because it is obvious that there are many different beliefs that are held by people around the world, cultural relativism can easily be seen as answer to the question of how to accurately and fairly judge the cultural morality of others, by not doing so at all. However Cultural Relativism is a lazy way to avoid the difficult task of evaluating one’s own values and weighing them against the values of other cultures. Many Cultural Relativist might abstain from making moral judgments about other cultures based on an assumed lack of understanding of other cultures, but I would argue that they do no favors to the cultures of others by assuming them to be so firmly ‘other’ that they would be unable to comprehend their moral decisions. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory fails to allow for critical thoughts on the nature of morality and encourages the stagnation
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.
In the movie ground hogs day, the main character Phil Connors, a Pittsburgh TV weatherman wakes up repeatedly to the same day every day, Ground Hogs day. Once he realizes that every day he is waking up to the same day, he begins to direct his day differently. His actions were intended and determined because he knew what was going to happen because he experienced the day before. He had an option to allow what was destined to happen, happen or Instead, chose a different route.
In “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Harry Frankfurt illustrates the concepts of freedom of will and freedom of action, but more importantly, Frankfurt has refined the compatibilism theory. Compatibilism allows the freedom of will to exist in the deterministic world. According to determinism theory, the future state of worlds is determined by some events in the distant past (E) and the laws of nature (L). More specifically, E refers to the history, such as experiences or states whereas L refers to scientific or physical law like gravity. For example, an alcoholic’s action is determined that he will not stop drinking. Here E is that he had been drinking in the past, and L is the physiological addiction effect caused by alcohol. As we can control neither E nor L, then it follows that we can never act free. The thesis of compatibilist, however, states that we may have free will, even if all of our actions are determined by forces beyond our controls.
All in all, each view of the philosophy of free will and determinism has many propositions, objects and counter-objections. In this essay, I have shown the best propositions for Libertarianism, as well as one opposition for which I gave a counter-objection. Additionally, I have explained the Compatabalistic and Hard Deterministic views to which I gave objections. In the end, whether it is determinism or indeterminism, both are loaded with difficulties; however, I have provided the best explanation to free will and determinism and to an agent being morally responsible.
Free will is the ability for a person to make their own decisions without the constraints of necessity and fate, in other words, their actions are not determined. Determinism is the view that the initial conditions of the universe and all possible worlds are the same, including the laws of nature, causing all events to play out the same. Events are determined by the initial conditions. Two prominent positions advocated concerning the relation between free will and determinism are compatibilism and incompatibilism. In this essay I shall argue that compatibilism is true. Firstly, I shall explain what compatibilism is and consider possible objections and responses to the theory. I shall then examine incompatibilism and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and argue that compatibilism is a stronger argument and, as a result, show why it is also true.
Libertarianism is simply a form of incompatibility that believe people have free will. While libertarian believe in free will they do not believe in determinism. A deeper meaning is the idea that we have choices between alternate futures. This mean we can choice which path we will follow by our will. Our well is not determined beforehand. Libertarianism in separate in three different kinds. Each of the different kind of libertarianism different in the way they believe in free will. The idea of free well is not a simply things to explain nor is Libertarianism. An example of this is the reason why if an action is not determine, then it not enough for it to be free. He reason is that because there is a reason why action
Because resources could be scarce, conflict was very much a part of a Mongol's daily life. Each encampment had to be wary of oncoming attacks and were prepared to retaliate against rivals. To prepare for this, children were taught to ride at a young age, starting with goats and progressing to ponies as they grew older. Boys were also taught how to wield battle-axes, small compound bows and lances. By the time they were teenagers, the young men would participate in hunting as well as battles, and were trained to ride for several days wi...
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.
Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a compatibilist argument in "Freedom and Necessity".
The word dementia is often used as an umbrella term to describe a wide range of symptoms. Dementia is commonly used to describe those with a decline in mental abilities that potentially interferes with their everyday life. This is common in older adults and may develop gradually or even appear suddenly. It is also important to note that, “dementia is more prevalent in older adults with the rate doubling about every 5 years after the age of 75 (Erber,2005; Papalia et al.,1996)” (Davis, Gfeller, & Thaut, 2008). Dementia not only affects the person who is diagnosed with it but also family and friends. Those who have dementia may have a hard time communicating effectively and that can add stress to those close to them. With regards to that, music therapy can be a great way to maintain mental abilities of those with dementia and help families communicate better with their loved one.
They struck fear into their enemies eyes with their gruesome affect and fierce actions. They showed no mercy. The Mongols were also known for their surprise attack which spread to other armies making it a keen warfare used all around the world. This battle tactic consisted of a group of men who are fighting out on the battlefield and they begin to retreat only to draw the enemy into a trap. The enemy runs into a rain of arrows as the rest of the men are hiding off to the side with loaded weapons, and fierce ground fighters ready for combat. This is one key that the Mongols had to help them conquer
More of Knight’s notable use of diction and tone is found in this stanza, where he writes, “A hillbilly called him a black son of a bitch/ And didn’t lose his teeth, a screw who knew Hard Rock/ From before shook him down and barked in his face./ And Hard Rock did nothing” (lines 24-27). It can be felt from Knight’s use of tone that this type of action is uncharacteristic of Hard Rock. The second stanza details Hard Rock’s lobotomy, with Knight writing, “...the doctors had bored a hole in his head,/ Cut out part of his brain, and shot electricity/ Through the rest” (lines 8-10). This leaves the inmate with an intruding presence of hopelessness. The imagery and diction is the last stanza of the poem drives home the motif of disheartenment that the black prison inmates felt after realizing that Hard Rock is forever changed. Similar to the movie One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, the central, nonconformist character Randle McMurphy, who gave the inmates a sense of hope, is lobotomized, leaving the prisoners afraid and unable to challenge authority in the way they could have if McMurphy was still his full, original self. This is the same way that Etheridge Knight and his fellow prisoners felt after Hard Rock’s return. The one person who was brave enough to stand back was now made into a martyr for the prisoners as well as an example made for the prisoners on what would happen if
Tension between the African Americans and Caucasians have been present in America since slavery. In the movie Crash (2004), race and culture are major themes that can be seen in the lives of the characters in the film. One character in particular, Cameron, a prestigious color vision director, displays the friction between two cultures. He belongs to the educated, upper class of the Los Angeles area. He is also an African American, yet he seems to have no ties with that class. He has a light-skinned wife, attends award shows, and it appears that his acquaintances are predominately white. When he and his wife, Christine, get pulled over by a racist cop, he experiences emotions of powerlessness and helplessness that he never knew he would experience due to his upbringing and place in society. Cameron goes through a radical transformation where he comes to grips with his background and how he fits into these two clashing cultures.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.