Monica Hayworth
PHIL 131.3001
Spring 2014
The principle of alternate possibilities is an age-old idea that if someone is forced into committing any given action, then he is not morally responsible for the result. While this is a plausible and widely accepted ideal, Frankfurt’s argument basically suggests that determinism and free will are not necessarily paradoxical—determinism defined as the phenomenon caused by external forces that influence our decisions. His argument attempts to answer the question of whether a person who is compelled to do something, i.e. through threats or promise of compensation, should necessarily be excused from responsibility for the consequences or granted praise for the benefits of his action. Frankfurt illustrates his point with several hypothetical situations involving a character named Jones who is faced with the decision whether to commit some act. The purpose of these examples is to prove that there are situations where someone can be compelled to do something and still be morally responsible for his decision.
The first example involves a version of Jones, Jones One, who is not necessarily the most reasonable man alive. He is tenacious and has preemptively and completely made up his mind to commit some action. (I have personally found it easier to grasp Frankfurt’s hypotheticals by applying details such as that this action is a crime—robbing a bank, for example—despite that Frankfurt was vague in this regard. Jones One has made up his mind to rob a bank entirely for his own reasons. At some point after which, someone has threatened to kill him if he chose not to rob the aforementioned bank. In this example, the threat is completely irrelevant to the situation because Jones One is t...
... middle of paper ...
...cific about what being “unable to choose otherwise” means. The first two examples are somewhat weak and fail to show that Jones was unable to choose otherwise, and the last example shows little more than that situations can be convoluted. If there exists situations where a person can be unable to do anything but one thing, chosen and influenced at any cost by external influences, and if this situation can yield at least a portion of the blame to said person, then the principle of alternate possibilities is faulty. In conclusion, Frankfurt has proven that a person should not be morally responsible for his actions “only because” another option was impossible, as opposed to “only if” another option was possible. This is difficult to object to, but it assumes that reasonable people are unable to discern the difference between a reason and an excuse in ethical judgments.
It is a problem due to the assumptions that we already know the conditions presented to us in any given situation. The trend she focuses on is known as the Deep Self View. The idea of the deep self view stems from three writers, Harry Frankfurt, Gary Watson and Charles Taylor. Frankfurt believes that there is a difference between freedom of action and freedom of the will. Freedom of action is the idea that someone can do whatever they want. Freedom of the will is if someone has the will to do whatever they want. To explain it better he introduces the concept of first order desires and second order desires. First- order desires are the desires to have or do many things, second order desires are desires about what we want and the desires to put them in action. Philosopher Gary Watson’s, view is like Frankfurt’s but in his terms “an agent is responsible for an action if the desires expressed by that action are of a particular kind.” (Wolf 247) Watson introduces the differences between free action and unfree action, is that these actions must be analyzed through its sources. Taylor on the other-hand claims that responsibility depends on how we criticize, reflect and revise our selves. Their views relate in which they all agree “…that the key to responsibility lies in the fact that responsible agents are those for whom it is not just the case that their actions are within the control of their wills, but also the case that their wills are within the control of their selves in some deeper sense.” (Wolf 248). This conclusion leads her into the discussion of the deep-self view. The deep-self view explains who we are inside based on our desires, the deep-self is influenced by what we choose to desire and what we desire. This influences our thoughts and decisions which leads into our moral responsibility. She later goes on to explain the inefficiencies to the deep-self
One remains officially entrapped between the outlooks of instantaneous sentence from state law, or perhaps delayed sentence from a worldwide court that tries to initiate a ruling from a superior ethical law. Incase one’s life or his or her family's life was endangered, incase the person defied orders the he or she recognized to be ethically culpable; there will be no choice but just follow the order. For instance, “Just Following Orders” or in other words "Nuremberg Defense" remained a famous fault of the
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 conclusion we can say that consequentialism is flawed in the fact that the borders of a wrongdoing, to bring about a better good, are limitless. We can conclude that evil wrong doing can be construed as bringing about a better happiness for what the evil doer contrives to be for the better good of the people. For the most part we have seen that deontology’s view of good will in the individuals act can lead to moral justification. The captain and his men must make this moral decision to kill or not, if they do kill the Indians, their actions must be left to higher authority to deal with.
In his article, Unger argues for a principle called Pretty Demanding Dictate which claims that we ought to spend most of our income in order to alleviate the suffering around the world. In support of this principle, Unger comes up with two cases: Bob’s Bugatti case and Ray’s Big Request case. To briefly discuss how Unger’s argument is structured, Unger proposes that if we agree that Bob should ruin his expensive Bugatti in order to save a child, we are inclined to believe that Ray should donate most of his money to UNICEF because he can do more good with lesser cost than Bob’s case. Here, Unger also proposes the Reasonable Principle of Ethical Integrity, which argues that if you believe someone should perform a certain act of benevolence, then you should be able to carry out the same act under the same circumstance as well. This principle is used to persuade us if we believe Bob or Ray should perform an act of benevolence in their situation, we should also do so under the same circumstance. At the end of this reasoning, we are led to believe that we should sacrifice most of our money just as we believe Bob and Ray should do.
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.
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
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.
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
Suppose something happens that it was within your power to prevent? If you didn’t have malicious intent, was it still you fault? Does letting someone die when you know you had the capability of saving them in turn make you a murderer? All of these are questions that philosophical thinkers have tried to answer for centuries. The Doctrine of Acts and Omissions holds that it is morally worse to commit an act that brings about a bad event than it would be merely to allow the event to take place by not doing anything to prevent its occurrence. In essence, there is an intrinsic moral difference between acting and the failure to act. In some ways, we bear more responsibility for what comes about as a result of our doing something than for what comes about as a result of our allowing it to happen. A proponent of the Doctrine of Acts and Omissions would say than in certain circumstances, killing is morally worse than letting die. Failing to give aid to someone bleeding out from an accidental amputation is no doubt bad, but surely not as bad as cutting their arm off in the first place.
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.
Free will is a problem that has been occupying the minds of many philosophers. The classical debate is whether we have free will or we are determined and therefore free will in an illusion. There are many views that philosophers have brought to the table in order to tackle this debate. Some of which are determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Harry Frankfurt’s general intake on the debate is that free will is not about having the ability to do otherwise. Instead, free will is about having the ability to make judgements about our desires. The purpose of this paper is to expound and asses Harry Frankfurt’s semi-compatibilist view, his concept of a person, and how it relates to the freedom of the will.
I believe this for two reasons, the first being that his arguments seem to be fundamentally rooted in science and human intuition. His view is based on genes, environment, and how we are conditioned to judge based on results. The second reason I is simple, his views fit perfectly into a deterministic world. At first glance Frankfurt’s argument rejecting the ability to do otherwise using the Jones and Black case is seemingly plausible, however, this argument is faulty proven by one major objection. The objection stating that Jones had the ability to decide otherwise also known as the “flicker of freedom.” This objection renders Frankfurt’s entire argument illegitimate. As I said before the whole argument takes us in a circle without any real closure. I and many others conclude that the Jones and Black case does not in fact succeed in establishing that an agent does not need the ATDO in order to have free will.
Frankfurt had two thesis. The first one was that you can only be a person if you have second order desires. The secondary thesis was that a person has free will only if they can change their actions into anything they desire. In the article Frankfurt first starts off by answer the question what does it mean to be human. He answers this simply by stating that us humans have the ability to have second order desires. Second order desires are the actions that you want to happen. So first order desires lead to actions such as eating or sleeping. Second order desires are what you want your first order desire to be. For instance if you are eating too much and want to cut back on the food you eat that would be a second order desire. Frankfurt also states that
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.).