From the beginning of abstract reasoning, human beings have contemplated and debated the nature of both free will and morality. The extent to which one impacts the other has permeated through the centuries as a philosophical and ethical conundrum. Great thinkers of the past have passed the baton to their successors with new tools and methods to examine both free will and moral responsibility and have molded the current day discussion with a immense, diverse dialogues.
As with so much else in contemporary Western culture, Aristotle was the first to contemplate the origins of virtue and what makes a person good. We understand much about what Aristotle thought about the subject through the translation of the ancient Greek. The Greek word ‘hexis’ which Aristotle uses to denote moral virtue, is an condition of action and describes a state in which something must be actively held. In his ‘Ethics’, Aristotle proposes that virtue or goodness manifests itself in action and that an action is good when one holds himself in a stable equilibrium of the soul, in order to choose the action knowingly and for its own sake. He also proposes that moral
…show more content…
This type of idea evolved greatly and influenced later philosophers and writers. In 1962, Peter Strawson argued that no matter the metaphysical characteristics of determinism and free will, the discussion on the issues would never cease as long as people believed in the power of them. In Robert Kane 's 1985 Free Will and Values he proposes that free choices require great effort because the arguments in favor of and against a given decision are equal and balanced, a theory later named ‘The Liberty of Indifference.’ Recently, contemporary philosophers such as Sam Harris propose that a lack of free will does not constitute a lack of moral judgement or justice for immoral
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
Choices that people make have a giant place in their lives. Most of us consider that we do these choices freely, that we have free will to make these choices. The point that most of us miss is free will is not simple as is it looks like. When one makes choices doesn’t he consider that what would that choices lead him to? Therefore does he make those choices for his benefits or his desires to make those choices? Does the environment push him to make those choices or does he have the free will to ignore his own environment? Philosopher and writes splits around those questions. There is different thesis, beliefs about free will. Some say that we are conditioned from birth with qualities of our personality, social standing and attitudes. That we do not have free will, our choices shapes up by the world we born in to. Some others believe that we born as a blank paper we could shape by the occasions or choices that we make freely. Marry Midgley on her article “Freedom and Heredity” defends that without certain limitations for instance our talents, capacities, natural feelings we would not need to use free will. Those limitations lead us to use free will and make choices freely. She continues without our limitations we do not need to use free will. Free will needs to be used according to our needs but when mentioning need not as our moral need as our needs to what could we bring up with our capacities. We need to use our free will without stereotypes. Furthermore free will should be shaped by the choice that would lead us good consequences.
As a result of predetermined and external causations such as our nature and nurture experiences, Strawson enhances the idea that all of our actions will always be linked back to these factors. If we were to choose another pathway or wanted to initiate a change in our current lives, it would inevitably be influenced by what was already selected for us: our genes and previous encounters that we faced as infants. Unless we were given the option to craft our physical bodies, beliefs, and personalities before birth, Strawson infers that since this is ultimately impossible, we can never truly be held morally responsible for our actions (Strawson 593).
He stated, “So virtue is a provisional disposition… virtue is a mean; but in respect of what is right and what is right and best, it is an extreme (Aristotle, 42).” Here Aristotle explains that moral virtue is determined by reason and that it avoids the states of too much, excess, or too little, deficiency. He believes that our soul is the principle of living because it is inside of us. Therefore, for Aristotle the soul was morally which is where we are given the right reason. He believes that, “there are two parts of the soul, one rational and one irrational (Aristotle, 145).” The rational part, which is how he believe we should do our actions upon, consists of possessing reason, part that can think and command, and intellectual virtues, which are virtues that come from time and experience. Courage is a moral virtue. When having courage, you either have too much fear, which makes you a coward, or you have too little fear, where you’d be considered rash or fool hardy. Generosity is also a moral virtue. When you are generous, you are either giving too much, which makes you profligate, or you are giving too little which would consider you as a stingy person. Moral virtues lead you to happiness because of their intermediate state that is by
Aristotle develops his virtue ethics by first considering ends and goods. He claims that “every action and decision, seems to seek some good” (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615). Aristotle states that we pursue certain things because of the benefits it brings itself and other consequences it may bring. Aristotle suggests that this is the same for goodness. We must pursue what is good for good itself and for any other benefits it may bring. Furthermore, Aristotle suggests that through pursuing the good, we are able to determine the best way of life (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615).
To be good is good but it has to be done for the right reason. Aristotle and Kant are two famous philosophers who have different ethical theories. The theory’s of virtue and duties rest not only on laws and obligations but from what comes from the inside. Morality comes from inner strength, character and how we live our life to the best end.
The connection between free will and moral responsibility has been a heavily debated topic by early philosophers with many ancient thinkers trying to demonstrate that humans either do have ultimate control over our actions and are not made by external forces or that humans do not have control and that the trajectory of our lives is pre-determined. The most common argument and the one I will focus on in this essay suggests that free will can not be correlated with randomness and, therefore, all other possibilities are exhausted.
All in all, each view about 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 it 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.
Interest is sparked in this area that Aristotle writes of because there is a natural need for Ethics in human life. John K. Roth states, “Aristotle assumes that all things, human beings included, have a good, a purpose or end, which it is their nature to fulfill”. This helps one understand Aristotle’s way of thinking, and provides insight to the basis of his theories. A common theory explored by Aristotle is the Ethics of Virtues, and how to practice them. A theory included in Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is the unity of all the virtues, and in order to be virtuous, one must exhibit all the virtues. One of these virtues being practical wisdom, or Phronesis.
Aristotle first developed upon the idea that humans final good is eudaimonia, which is happiness and all round human flourishing. He saw the development of virtue as the in which way we can achieve this good. Additionally
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
In Book II, Aristotle makes a distinction between two types of virtues; those which are considered ethical and those which are considered intellectual. Ethical virtues deal with actions of courage, generosity, and moderation. Intellectual virtues deal with wisdom and contemplation. Ethical virtues are created through habitual actions. Aristotle says that humans are not born with a natural capacity for virtue. He believes that education and cultivation as youth by one’s parents are pivotal in setting up humans’ ability in making virtuous acts habitual. He feels that humans have to perform virtuous actions as much as possible and through this humans can make a step in becoming virtuous. Aristotle also states that ethical virtues have to be attended by pleasure. He believes that humans cannot be pained when committing a virtuous action. If a human is pained by an action then it is not considered virtuous.
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.
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
Aristotle once stated that, “But if happiness be the exercise of virtue, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be the exercise of the highest virtue; and that will be the virtue or excellence of the best part of us.” (481) It is through Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that we are able to gain insight into ancient Greece’s moral and ethical thoughts. Aristotle argues his theory on what happiness and virtue are and how man should achieve them.