Some people say that the definition of independence is a complex word and idea to try to define. In al truth independence is a perplexing word to try to define. This is because everybody has their own speculations of what independence is. Very infrequently are their two people that have the same perception of what the definition of independence is. What I perceive the definition of independence is the absolute freedom to do what you want, and to not be held back by any rules or laws of government or man, but by the rules and laws of nature and your own self concise.
We are creatures with limitations and that provides us make choices by our own. In conclusion choices people make depends on much more things that we can imagine. We all think that we make our choices freely, that we have free will to make these choices. Many philosophers argued about the question of free will yet could not get up with a simple result. Midgley supports that without certain limitations for instance our talents, capacities, natural feelings we would not need to use free will.
Do We Have A Free Will? An individual with “Free Will” is capable of making vital decisions and choices in life with own free consent. The individual chooses these decisions without any outside influence from a set of “alternative possibilities.” The idea of “free will” imposes a certain kind of power on an individual to make decisions of which he or she is morally responsible. This implies that “free will” would include a range of aspects such as originality, moral value, and self-governance. However, in life, individuals may not be free in making decisions.
If we are dependent on other’s acknowledgment of our freedom to be considered free, then we are not free because we depend on the existence of the other to accept and agree with our freedom. Within this framework, if we were to remove the Other, we would thereby be removing the very thing which grants us our freedom. Further still, De Beauvoir’s belief that an open future equates freedom, presents certain problems as everyone encounters obstacles in their life that are placed there by outside forces beyond their control such as the government and society. These hinderances may prevent or at least complicate an individual’s journey towards their envisioned future as they must overcome the roadblocks to reach their goal. De Beauvoir would likely counter this possible problem as she would argue that the pressure from society and restrictions from the government are not severe enough to necessitate a claim to oppression from the individual in question.
In this passage from Hegel he is saying that freedom is terribly misunderstood in it's formal subjective sense, and has been far removed from its essential purpose and goals. People think they should be able to do whatever they want and that is what freedom is, and that anything limiting there desires, impulses , and passions is a limit of there freedom. Hegel is saying this is not true, but these limitations are simply the condition from which they must free themselves from, and that society and the government are where freedom is actualized. What I believe he means by this is that without limits we would not know what freedom is. 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.
On one end of the continuum is the belief in total free will, on the other end is the belief that free will does not exist. However, there is middle ground in a third concept by which has pieces of both sides contributing to this one notion. This concept is compatibilism, which believes somewhat like determinists, that the universe operates with law like order. Thus, the past determines the future, and though compatibilists believe this they also believe some of the actions taken by humans really are free. Though every action is free to a compatibilist there is no way by which something couldn’t not happen, therefore everything is determined.
A moral obligation requires an ability to do the thing you’re obligated to do; and an ability to do the thing that you are obligated to do requires that you are free to do it. If you are not free to do otherwise, then you lack the ability to choose to fulfil your obligation, which means you are not obliged to do it. Determinism is the view that that every event has a set of causes, sufficient enough to explain why it, and not some other event, occurred. Is it often thought that if determinism of this sort is believed, then it implies that freewill does not exist. The argument is as follows: If every event is determined, including every act of choosing, then the choice made has already been determined so therefore cannot be free.
We are even, quite often, unaware that we are making decisions due to habituation and preference. Before going further, we must define the terms free will, determinism and fate or destiny. Free will is the ability to choose. Furthermore, it is the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate. Fate, or destiny, can be defined as the inevitable events predestined by this force.
Even all the questions in reality is to provide the option to make a choice, and the so-called freedom is to provide more options, expands the choice. Then on the basis of any free is to will as the boundary, in other words, is to limit the free will, naturally can not describe the will itself. Further, a moment of freedom exists only in the selection, property belongs to the action initiation process, once the selection is made, at the moment of freedom is meaningless. However, there are some philosophers have opposite idea about determinism. Some scholars believe that, due to the relationship between determinism advocated that the thing is the antecedents and consequences, so the determinism is necessarily cause theory and can't be real internal theory; while the non-determinism denies the causal relationship between things, think things arise even if there... ... middle of paper ... ...nk.
We take freedom for granted, even though in some countries it is not so trivial. It is not enough to feel that freedom is our basic right, but to understand why it is so important, and why freedom can not be replaced by the specific ends one might think it is means to. I will argue, that freedom does have independent value. First I will talk about the non-independent value of freedom, and look at the different independent values, then concentrate on the non-specific instrumental value. I am going to look at claims where Dworkin and Kymlicka were wrong, and evaluate Ian Carter’s standpoint.