Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Free will and moral responsibility has always been one of the most basic and fundamental elements of philosophy. It is undeniable that there is a connection between free will and moral responsibility. Different philosophers throughout the ages have viewed this connection in both similar and differing ways. The first connection between free will and moral responsibility can be seen by Aristotle and Epictetus through their views of the voluntary and involuntary. It can then be seen in a differing view by Frankfurt in which a person is only free if they are free to have the will they want.
Aristotle believes that people seek pleasure while avoiding pain. He views the voluntary as something that would lead to pleasure while the involuntary as something that would lead to pain. A voluntary action would be an action that originates from the person. When a person is acting voluntarily the person is acting on their desires. An example of this can be when a person sees someone in trouble and then voluntarily goes to help. On the other hand an involuntary action would then originate not from within the person but instead from an outside force. Aristotle claims that all involuntary actions are actions which are compelled and due to them being compelled they are in turn also unpleasant as is anything else a person is forced to do. An example of an involuntary action could be when a person hands over money to a thief due to the thief holding a gun to the persons head. Aristotle also views an action which a person does in ignorance to be an involuntary action. While the ignorant action would also originate from the person and not an outside force it would cause an end that was neither desired nor foreseen. ...
... middle of paper ...
... for taking the drug even though the willing addict has no control over his will.
AS can be seen by the views of these three different philosophers free will and moral responsibility are undeniably connected. It is how the two are connected that can be debated as shown. Whether the connection be between our voluntary and involuntary actions as the two philosophers Aristotle and Epictetus go on to claim or if the connection between the two is only applied if we are free to have the will that we want to have as Frankfurt claims. Even then there are certain situations in each of those philosophers views where exceptions can come about making everything not so black and white proving that there is no true definition of the connection but instead leaving the connection between free will and moral responsibility up to the interpretation of the person trying to define it.
...ow moral responsibility. One needs to will other alternate possibilities, knowing that there is no moral responsibility for them, to show that the original will has moral responsibility. It is like placing a white stone on a pile of black stones to emphasize the fact that that one stone is a white stone. This shows the need for alternate possibilities and strengthens Frankfurt’s argument.
Since laws put certain restrictions on a human’s free will, it should not stop humans from doing what he or she wants to do. He also expresses how society and nature should not determine one’s own free will, because it can never be taken away from humans. This, roughly speaking, is the principle of transfer of nonresponsibility. Now, an argument can be generated to show that causal determinism rules out moral responsibility.
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.
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
The simplest description of free will, as conceived by such philosophers as David Hume, is simply that free will is, “the ability to choose an action to satisfy a desire” (Hoefer). However, modern philosophers have mostly rejected this definition because it is known that nonhuman animals also act on their wants and needs but lack the intelligence to consider their actions as free choices. A more complex assessment of free will, better differentiating between humans and animals, is that the ability of humans to choose actions flows from the relationship between their animal desires and intellects. This means that people's actions are free when they have intelligently determined the best decision to make in any situation, even if their choices conflict with what they truly want, or their base animal desires. By conquering their basic instincts to make rational, informed decisions, humans have exercised free will, which animals cannot do
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.
The question of free will (greec: τὸ αὐτεξούσιον or τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν,lat: liberum arbitrium), which requires a high level of authenticity, rationality and the ability to choose between different alternatives interested for centuries important philosophers and since last decades also neuroscientists. If the person deals according to her personal motives (competing desires which depend upon her personality) and has freedom of action so we can call her desision free will. But this will often undergos environmental influences. For creation of a concept that overcomes this limitation of freedom the definition of absolute freedom was proposed. Karl Popper and Jean -Paul Sartre believed in this kind of free will. For metaphysical libertarianism (divided into physical and non-physical or natural theory) concept of free will implies that the individual in certain circumstances can make a choice from several possible actions. The non-physical theories consider dualistically that the events in the brain that lead to action, can not be reduced to physical explanations. William of Ockham and Thomas ...
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.
Kane, Robert. "Free Will: Ancient Dispute, New Themes." Feinberg, Joel and Russ Safer-Landau. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013. 425-437. Print.
Free will is generally has two similar key points that revolve around it: moral responsibility and freedom of action. Free action is generally when an agent is exercising their free will. For example, let’s say a man named mark was deciding
“Please tell me: isn’t God the cause of evil?” (Augustine, 1). With this question to Augustine of Hippo, Evodius begins a philosophical inquiry into nature of evil. Augustine, recently baptized by Saint Ambrose in Milan, began writing his treatise On Free Choice of the Will in 387 C.E. This work laid down the foundation for the Christian doctrine regarding the will’s role in sinning and salvation. In it, Augustine and his interlocutor investigate God’s existence and his role in creating evil. They attempt not only to understand what evil is, and the possibility of doing evil, but also to ascertain why God would let humans cause evil. Central to the premise of this entire dialogue is the concept of God, as relates to Christianity; what is God, and what traits separate Him from humans? According to Christianity, God is the creator of all things, and God is good; he is omnipotent, transcendent, all-knowing, and atemporal- not subject to change over time- a concept important to the understanding of the differences between this world and the higher, spiritual realm He presides over. God’s being is eidos, the essence which forms the basis of humans. With God defined, the core problem being investigated by Augustine and Evodius becomes clear. Augustine states the key issue that must be reconciled in his inquiry; “we believe that everything that exists comes from the one God, and yet we believe that God is not the cause of sins. What is troubling is that if you admit that sins come from… God, pretty soon you’ll be tracing those sins back to God” (Augustine, 3).
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).
I want to argue that there is indeed free will. In order to defend the position that free will means that human beings can cause some of what they do on their own; in other words, what they do is not explainable solely by references to factors that have influenced them. My thesis then, is that human beings are able to cause their own actions and they are therefore responsible for what they do. In a basic sense we are all original actors capable of making moves in the world. We are initiators of our own behavior.
Human nature is about free will, and using one’s free will for good acts. We know free will exists because living things are being changed day after day. Any act, from walking across a room to deciding to eat a meal, is because of free will. We are given free will and with that, the ability to create our own, unique path in life. Free will provides human beings with freedom, judgement, and responsibility. Every human being is born with the capability to live a good, just life. However it is just as possible to live an immoral life led by bad choices. This notion of endless options in life is made possible by God’s gift of free will. No two human lives will ever be the same, because no two people will ever have the exact same experiences their entire lives. Every human being is shaped by experience, which comes from our actions, which are results of free will.