Explain the key ideas of libertarianism with particular reference to:
× The personality and the moral self
× The causally undetermined choice (30)
Libertarianism is the philosophical position that human beings possess free will, and from that we are free to make choices. This means that we are morally responsible for our actions as moral responsibility requires freedom. Moreover, Libertarians believe that each human being has a right to self-determination which must be respected by society; it is a defining feature of what it means to be a moral being. One theorist who views freedom from a Libertarian perspective is Peter Van Inwagen – he introduces the ‘garden of forking paths’ argument. Inwagen states that we consciously
…show more content…
They believe that a moral agent can overcome pressures exerted on themselves by their own personality and become morally responsible for their own actions; this distinguishes humans from animals. Moreover, your personality is formed partially by genetics, partially by the environment in which on w is brought up, but mainly by the free choices the individual makes. On the other hand, the moral self is a metaphysical idea that allows us to exercise free will; it can constrain actions we may wish to take. Essentially, the moral self is where free will is curtailed by volition – we act out of duty rather than from self-interest. This idea of acting out of duty is a Kantian perspective on free will. Overall, the moral self helps us to live in society and respect the rights of others. This is known as the categorical imperative – always universalise your maxim. From this, Libertarians say that people should be allowed to express themselves and not have to conform; this is also a view held by John Stuart Mill as he states that individually means the growth and development of a human. Nevertheless, people have to be aware of any potential harm their use of their liberty might bring to another. An example of the moral self curtailing our volition can be seen through wishing to hit someone as they are being annoying – your moral self prevents you from doing so as you know it will harm the other person and that …show more content…
With this form of choice, we are not compelled to act by any other force; it is our moral consciousness that is free and decides. Moreover, these decisions result from the character and moral views of the person themselves, and – according to Libertarians – we are free to act on these decisions but we are also morally responsible for them. We are perceived as free agents with the capability to make choices and accept the consequences. We – as humans – have a sense of weighing up options before we make decisions. However, some people argue that causation is a fact of the universe but Libertarians believe it does not apply to the human will. Libertarians attempt to demonstrate this idea through quantum mechanics as well as the chaos theory; these theories attempt to prove that nature is indeterministic and therefore not everything is determined. If we look at chaos theory, which is the idea that there is apparently random behaviours within a deterministic system, we can see this idea of things not being determined. However, this ‘randomness’ is not due to a lack of laws, but rather due to immeasurable variations in the initial conditions affecting the outcome of an event. Furthermore, this is why chaos theory is often referred to as the butterfly effect as the beat of a butterfly’s wing in Europe could lead to a hurricane in
There is much debate over the issue of whether we have complete freedom of the will or if our will caused by something other than our own choosing. There are three positions adopted by philosophers regarding this dispute: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinists believe that freedom of the will does not exist. Since actions are events that have some predetermined cause, no actions can be chosen and thus there is no will to choose. The compatibilist argues that you can have both freedom of the will and determinism. If the causes which led to our actions were different, then we could have acted in another way which is compatible with freedom of the will. Libertarians believe that freedom of the will does exist.
God has given us as human beings free will. Although if we make choices based on our own free will we must be willing to take the responsibility for the effects that our decisions have on ourselves, on the people around us, and on society itself. Freedom, I believe, is the way in which people live or behave without others annoying or interfering in his or her affairs. People should benefit from freedom, equality and justice. Absolute freedom is sometimes very dangerous and may destroy the basic principles of the society. A lot of people believe that freedom means doing whatever you want, whenever you want.
In conclusion, do individuals have free will, or are our actions pre-determined? This is the question of many individuals and we will never know the answer. In this paper I compared and contrasted the three major philosophical viewpoints regarding the concepts of determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism. I also gave strengths and weaknesses of each position. I came to a conclusion on which I find to be a correct answer.
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 aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three views, which refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote in the essay, I disagree with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campbell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it, as well as reject one main argument from the other.
Megan Darnley PHIL-283 May 5, 2014 Compatibilism and Hume. The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions is on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event is because of some prior cause.
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
Roderick Chisholm is a libertarian who believes that humans have the ability to have free thought and are responsible for their actions. He discusses the man and
In life we are constantly questioning why people act the way they do. A determinist would say that freedom of choice couldn’t always be possible because our actions are determined by things that are way beyond our control. This view is known as the most extreme form of determinism; hard determinism. A hard determinist would believe there is no free will it’s an illusion everything is determined. Everything happens because of physical laws, which govern the universe. Whether or not we do well in life is far beyond our control. We may seem to have a choice but in reality we don’t. We shouldn’t blame people or praise people it wasn’t their choice. We are helpless and blind from start to finish. We don’t have any moral responsibilities. Some causes that are put forth by determinist are human nature; which means people are born with basic instincts that influence how they act. Another is environmental influence, which simply means people are shaped by their environment conditioned by their experience to be the kind of people they are. Also, social dynamics, which mean’s social creatures that are influenced by social force around them and psychological forces, which is people, are governed by psychological forces.
Author Robert Kane has a libertarian view on free will. He cites his reasons such as the garden of forking paths where every decision made by a person brings that person on a new path therefor forking from the old path. This means that it is possible a person could have chosen otherwise and gone on a different path if a different decision had been made. The alternate argument, for determinism, is that every decision has already been made and there is no garden of forking paths, just a straight line and everything that happens is meant to happen. Another major argument Kane uses is the argument of Ultimate Responsibility, which in short means that a person shall not be held completely responsible for something unless they are the ultimate author
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 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.
In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each individual is bound by their own will and in an ideal society, people should operate only according to their reason. Influenced by Kant’s ideas, an american writer by the name of Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote his own call to individual morality through an essay on Self-Reliance. In “Self-Reliance”, Emerson tells individuals to trust in their own judgments, act only according to their own wills, and to use their own judgment to determine what is right. Emerson’s Self-Reliance and Kant’s autonomy differ to the extent of where reason comes from. However, they agree on its purpose in dictating the individual’s judgment and actions. As a result, Autonomy and Self-Reliance have essentially the same message. Both Kant and Emerson agree that the individual should trust only their own reason, that they are bound only by their own free will, and that the actions of an individual should be governed by reason.
Freedom is a human value that has inspired many poets, politicians, spiritual leaders, and philosophers for centuries. Poets have rhapsodized about freedom for centuries. Politicians present the utopian view that a perfect society would be one where we all live in freedom, and spiritual leaders teach that life is a spiritual journey leading the soul to unite with God, thus achieving ultimate freedom and happiness. In addition, we have the philosophers who perceive freedom as an inseparable part of our nature, and spend their lives questioning the concept of freedom and attempting to understand it (Transformative Dialogue, n.d.).
According to Augustine, “Human beings are endowed with a power that he calls the will.” He emphasizes the will to being the center of freedom. Unlike other philosophers, who are determinists, Augustine, who has a libertarian view, sees our will as free choice. So for whatever we may choose to do, we become solely responsible for our actions which are caused by external factors instead of internal ones.