If you could always do what you've always wanted the thought of not being able to do something would be so foreign to you that you would not understand what it was to not have freedom, for that matter you would not understand what having freedom was either. That is why it is impossible to have one-hundred percent freedom, because if we ever reached one-hundred percent freedom you would be treading on other peoples freedoms because not everyone wants the same thing. That is what I believe Hegel is trying to say is that freedom is simply the process of freedoms progress, not a tangible goal because as free as you might think you are you still have laws and limitations and thats OK it should be looked at as a reminder of what freedom we do have. Hegel says that the nature of spirit's direct opposite is matter. And the essence of matter is gravity and the essence of spirit is freedom.
Determinism dictates that for there to be human freedom, the action or the choice made would have to be completely independent of past events or actions. According to determinism, these free acts do not exist. For a person to have free will, the person would have to be an original source of that particular action. No similar action or occurrence could have happened before this particular act of free will. Arguably, since actions are caused by a desire or a specific need, which are derived from our character whilst our character is shaped by our heredity and the environment we occupy, therefore no person can be a first mover ("Freedom and Determinism").
Therefore, there is no means of proving this hypothesis. I believe that different ways of knowing immensely affect our perception of truth. It appears unfathomable to be certain that anyone can see the truth, because the different ways of knowing influence our perception of what we believe to be ‘reality’. ‘Truth’ is formed in our minds. In my opinion, what is true and what is believed to be true cannot be discerned; I believe that we form a truth in our own minds, and that we consciously choose to believe in it, because we have no other way of being certain about our reality.
If indeterminism is true, we are not responsible since ever choice is a chance occurrence C.) Either determinism or indeterminism is true. D.) Therefore we can never responsible for our actions. Chisholm responds to this dilemma in a way that most others do not think of. He says that there is a third category, in which most libertarians agree, that humans are free to make their own decisions. Chisholm also has a problem with agreeing to the relationship between moral responsibility and determinism.
Sartre believes that freedom, in terms of free choices, is a center and unique potentiality, which human all have in nature. We can choose to do what we want. It is the right that no one can take away from us. Freedom, in my opinion, is subjective because it exists in our mind, and only we can be aware of it. Sartre also ignores the determinism theory, which states that everything has be set up in a certain way, and that we can only follow that pathway.
Strawson argues that determinism, which is the idea that any and everything is predetermined and inevitable in nature, does not necessarily have to be true in order for us to claim that we are not morally responsible for any of our actions. In essence, whether or not there is an external force that determines our actions, we cannot be held morally responsible for being who we are. First, moral responsibility is deserving to be praised or blamed for one’s actions based on one’s moral obligations. By his standards, our predetermined fate is ultimately morally responsible for what we do and who we are. According to Strawson, free will is simply not real because that would result in us being truly responsible for our actions as a result of being able to exercise that will.
However, when a person is making a rational decision between two things that he values, he is the only person that can decide which is best for him. An important condition to remember in this conclusion is that all of this is assuming that no other individuals are being harmed or put at risk by the actions of these people. Under this condition I have come to the conclusion that there do exist certain circumstances where the government has a right to legal paternalism. These circumstances include times when an individual is unable to make a rational and logical decision for himself either because he does not fully understand the issue or because he is unable to logically assign value to specific possible consequences of a decision.
Culture Relativism Culture Relativism is a contradictory theory for the explanation of the way we ought to live because the roots of the theory don’t give any explanation for what is right and wrong but instead only a means for right and wrong to be judged. By no fathom of the imagination can one contend that his or her own self ideas are correct there are certain bias that come with all judgments on the correct way to live, but if culture relativism stood true than it must be able to give some sort of universal truth. To produce a theory that says in its entirety the correct way to live depends on the culture you were brought up in and that is a truth contradicts itself. Culture relativists contend that this is a truth all people are different and we all have different moral codes. I think for the most we do, but to what does this argument mean?
It is important to distinguish between freedom’s kinds of values, because in defining a system of government, the attitude towards freedom is a key component. If freedom has no independent value, different schools of political thought might have the standpoint, that we should not value freedom at all, only the things that it is means to. Some might think that they know better what is good for people, and feel justified in constraining people’s freedom. We intuitively value freedom, and usually do not even notice, that we have it, because it woven through so much of our everyday life. We take freedom for granted, even though in some countries it is not so trivial.
So, in essence whether or not a distribution of property is just depends upon how it came about. Discussing patterned theories, Nozick is of the opinion that such principles deny people's basic rights because they interfere with people’s right to take part in free and fair transactions if they wish to. A Patterned theory is one that define specific principles that govern the distribution of wealth “Along with some natural dimensions”. And to maintain such a pattern, an individual’s rights to liberty have to be violated. *******So no one can forcibly transfer wealth from one individual to another.