The morality of an action is largely contingent on the person committing the act being a free actor. This poses an issue when attempting to attribute moral responsibility to those suffering from delusions and altered mental states, as these individuals are often unable to differentiate between what is real and what is merely a delusion. This inability to distinguish has sparked heated debate over whether these individuals can be held morally responsible for their actions. This is a topic that scholars are heavily divided upon. This article examines the different scholars’ opinions on how moral responsibility ought to be attributed to those suffering from delusions and altered mental states, as well as observes the lack of any universal metric …show more content…
The “Basic Argument” posed by Galen Strawson in his paper The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility attacks this assumption head-on. In his paper, Dr. Strawson argues that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions because we are not “causa sui – nothing can be the cause of itself” (Strawson 5). Since we are not the cause of ourselves, Strawson argues that we cannot be wholly responsible for ourselves. To better understand Strawson’s argument, we must first accept that our response to certain actions is largely based on our prior experiences and that our prior experiences determine how we will act in a given instance. Understanding this, the rest of Dr. Strawson’s argument follows logically. If we are not responsible for the pre-determinants governing how we will act, then we cannot be responsible for the outcome of our responses to certain situations. Understanding this objection to the notion of moral responsibility opens the door to many more questions such as “does free will exist?” or “can morality even exist if our future actions will be the summation of our past experiences?” Rather than delving into the nuances of each of these and related questions, the inclusion of Dr. Strawson’s article in this literature review serves two major purposes. First, it serves to underscore the idea that scholars are divided even on the topic of whether moral culpability can even truly exist, and secondly, it serves the purpose of introducing the notion that we cannot be morally responsible for influences that are outside of our own
In short, Strawson’s Basic Argument proves that we cannot ultimately be morally responsible for what we do. He concludes this from three premises: 1) Humans behave the way they do because of the way they are 2) If you’re going to be responsible for the things
In “Luck Swallows Everything” and “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility” Galen Strawson and Susan Wolf’s explain the concept of responsibility in both a compatibilist and determinist view. Strawson argued that change was not possible at all when it comes to responsibility due to an individual’s mental nature, while Wolf argues that change is possible for an individual when it comes to responsibility. This essay will be focusing on the criticism of Wolf’s work.
I agree with Strawson in saying that we are not truly morally responsible for what we do, in a mental respect at least. Though it suffers from many faults, there are also ways to even more clarify his argument, as I will hope to do so in the following. First off, Strawson states that for someone to be truly morally responsible, we have to understand the points that he has given. The first being that we do what we do because of the way we are. These just states that the things we do and decide are based upon how we are in that moment, in mental respects. For example, when it comes to choosing what to eat between options A or B, I will choose option A because of how I am. But if you were to choose, it would be dependent on the way that you are
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.
The flaw within his argument lies in his premise that we are not responsible for who we are in any given respect. He has already dismissed the need for determinism, and as such, has dismissed the thought of spontaneous action. Spontaneous action is neither predicted nor caused, but purely a matter of chance or random behavior. I will assume that there are only two categories of our actions: spontaneous and predetermined or deterministic. In either case, we do not have free will and hence should not be held morally responsible for our actions. However, the fault is this: it is unclear whether his idea of moral responsibility is the correct one as he fails to demonstrate this. This will therefore offset his argument, because of the possibility of many views of moral responsibility, which I will discuss
Many students who are enrolled in FFA are already heading in the right direction to a bright future. FFA has many career benefits within the program. Any of the career development events (CDE’s) have something that will tie to a career in agriculture or to a career of other sorts. According to the National FFA Organization, “FFA members embrace concepts taught in agricultural science classrooms nationwide, build valuable skills through hands-on experiential learning and each year demonstrate their proficiency in competitions based on real-world agricultural skills”(“Statistics”). There are so many careers that tie into FFA, and many of them have to do with agriculture. Not every career that has to do with agriculture is about farming. There are so many different aspects of the agriculture industry that many people never think twice about. Most people are not interested in agriculture because they think it is just about farming or
In America, knives, forks, and spoons are necessary tools people have in order to function properly everyday. Without cutlery, people would continue to eat with their dirty, bacteria covered hands, slurping and licking their way through their meals. People would drink bowls of hot soup, maul steak like a feral dog stealing his first bone in weeks, and scoop large chunks of ice cream with frostbitten fingers. Like most individuals in the world, I never put too much thought into how important a spoon was until I needed it. I especially did not care where my family’s flatware came from or how they were created, as long as it was in the cabinet when I wanted to grab a quick bite to eat. Unfortunately, no one cares about a spoon, a fork, or
In this essay I shall explore the question of moral responsibility and free will, by looking at, and comparing, ideas that stem from a Kantian philosophical position, and those that stem from a naturalist philosophical position. I will also consider the implications that follow from each position, when considering the issue of punishment. Furthermore, I will show that although Kantian and naturalist philosophers typically differ in some aspects, such as their concept of the source of free will, they find themselves in much the same position when it comes to determining when moral responsibility is applicable. However, when we turn to applying moral philosophy to the important practical issue of punishment, the Kantian position becomes incoherent as soon as we consider the possibility that free will does not exist. Conversely, a naturalist position, particularly one of the consequentialist tradition, remains capable of answering such an important normative question, regardless of whether its notion of free will turns out to be correct or incorrect. Ultimately then, I will suggest that it is the naturalist philosopher who is in the better position to tackle the normative question of punishment, that arises in applied moral philosophy.
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.
“Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast over nature”. From the beginning of time man and nature has been in conflict with one another because, as a whole, there is no cooperating. Each one tirelessly wants its way. The Man is fighting for dominance and nature w never yielding its authority. In American Literature, many authors illustrate this theme in their writing. Specifically the writers Jack London in The Law Of Life, Stephen Crane The Open Boat and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Fin. Each explores the relationship between humans and nature but with slightly different methods. Mark Twain uses nature in a realistic way, Jack London in a naturalistic way and Stephen Crane constitutes a combination of both.
Have you ever felt stuck? Wherever you are, it’s the absolute last place you want to be. In the book Into the Wild, Chris McCandless feels stuck just like the average everyday person may feel. Chris finds his escape plan to the situation and feels he will free himself by going off to the wild. I agree with the author that Chris McCandless wasn’t a crazy person, a sociopath, or an outcast because he got along with many people very well, but he did seem somewhat incompetent, even though he survived for quite some time.
Either our choices are causally determined, or they are accidental, both deny moral responsibility. If one acts through an accident, then it is merely due to chance that one did not choose the alternative, and so it is irrational to be held responsible. If it is not due to chance, there must be a causally determined explanation for the behaviour. A moralist will object, as to them, choice is dependent on character. We are free in the sense that we are responsible for ourselves, but only through the connection of our past and what we do now.
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.
Criminal responsibility is the moral practice of holding an individual accountable for there crimes. This responsibility allows people who are found guilty of crimes to endure punishment or rehabilitation, which can vary in different countries and legal systems. This not only punishes and discourages crime but also allow people to see the tools of state power and the symbolic power that it has to show the community the consequences for the individual, at least when looking at serious criminal offences. This demand on individual responsibility also hold person to account for the conduct, and often society want a response that condemns remorse or regret for their actions and to reflect on their tort (Tadros, 2010). Although individual responsibility holds persons reasonable for crimes, there are certain circumstances which persons are exempt. For example, children under a certain age to not have the mental capacity of being responsible agents which refereed back to as the Latin term ‘doli incpax’, incapable of forming intent to commit a tort. In Queensland, the federal law surrounding criminal liability states that persons under the age of 14 are doli incapax (Australian Parliament, nd) This exemption can also be perceived with persons who have mental illness. These exemption are reasonable due to that some people are incapable of controlling or understanding their mental and physical actions, therefore providing reasonable outcomes for those don’t have mental guilt or physical capability to commit a crime (Australian law reform commission, 2015). This acknowledgment to those who don’t understand criminal wrongs in relation to Mens rea and Actus reas, caters to the society diversity and overall doesn’t make a person liable for a criminal act that they didn’t have the capacity to undertake.
In this course I have learned and written many essays from as small as reading responses to writing an argumentative paper. All the essays had a similar style of writing and that is that it had to have a thesis, body paragraphs, and a conclusion except for the major assignments like LEN, Argumentative Paper, Lit Review, and etc., which required more than just those three elements to writing the essay. I prefer one type of writing style to another because it lets me see the difference in my writing and if there are improvements in my writing. I do see similarities in the different essays I wrote and they are that my thesis statements are not strong enough, which is why my essays are not strong enough. Choosing a good thesis statement and having good body paragraphs are crucial to writing essays because that is the key part of the essay, which I needed work on all semester.