Question: If we do not have free will, should people be held responsible for their actions and therefore punished ?
Technical Terms:
- Neurosis is a condition developed by unpleasent events throughout babyhood which consequently triggers behavioral disorders.
- Id is an entity that dwells in the unconscious and is responsible for our most rudimentary desires and urges.
- Super ego usually works in contradiction to the id and is structured by culture, family and religion.
- ego is the mediator between the id and the super ego.
Author's Thesis: No, individuals should not be held responsible for their action. Nevertheless they must be punished.
Author's Argument: in " Meaning and Free Will" American philospher Jhon Hosper attempts to restructure the common notion of freedom. The point of his article is to demonstrate the flaws on the conventinal definition of a free action and provide a deeper understanding about the issue. His article begins by stating the ordinary definition of a free act " an act is free if and only if it is voluntary" (Hspers 653) and then follows with a series of examples where an act is performed voluntarily but evidently does not convey the idea of freedom. the common theme in these examples is an action being carried out under some sort of pressure or how he calls it compulsion. Hence, he goes on to refine the definition of a free act by suggesting that an action performed voluntarily and under no compulsion seems to be a sufficient condition to ensure that an act is indeed free. Nevertheless, he continuous presenting a different example where the refined definition leaves an air of dissatisfaction. With this new obstacle he decides to switch the focus of the article into the doer of the action and not ...
... middle of paper ...
... that shaped their unconscious. My reasons are simple: if we exempt people from responsability chaos would take over the world. what would happen with the justice department? Impunity would be a constant theme throughout the ages and living would be replace by surviving. This may sound exaggerated but with careful thougth this is a perfectly plausible scenrio. who would dictate morality if responsability is out of the picture. the implications are simply disastrous, punishemnt could not be enforced. under what law can someone punish an innocent person?, and I define innocent as someone without responsability of what is being charged. In a world without responsability anarchy would be the common law.Therefore responsability should not be subject to the reasons or causes that trigger an action but to the agent itself even if the causes are out of his power to control.
I think that even when our acts are driven by an automated machinery - the brain, that should not be an excuse to exculpate us but instead an approach to find solutions. II. Why blameworthiness is the wrong question. Eagleman states that the question no longer makes sense because a person and its biology are now understood to be the same.
In our reading on Discourse of Free Will, we get a good idea of the opinions both Erasmus and Luther had on the topic of free will and the how it correlates with God’s grace. Once we look beyond the back and forth debate of this text, we will begin to look at their theological opinions on free will separately to find a better understanding and formulate our own opinions on this commonly debated topic.
When one turns on the television today they are made witness to all the crimes that are present in society. It is impossible to sit through thirty-five minutes of news without anger and rage becoming aroused. This is because society is bothered by infinitesimal paraphernalia. Society also believes in human rights and punishment for those who violate such rights. Yet what constitutes humanity? Ever sit there and watch the news and wonder just how far humanity reaches? When is it time to say this is a human rights violation? Every wonder when someone’s morals and ethics begin to effect their ability to do their job? Ever wonder why in every news story the “bad guy” always become caught? Ever wonder how many people on death row might not be guilt? Some of them could have even been used as scapegoats. Yet how does one become a scapegoat? Could someone out there have that much hatred and anger to blame one person for the faults of many? Is the need for blame significant? Does desire lead to more hatred and evil? What does it feel like to be blamed for something that might not be wrong, and to be put on trial knowing that the jury wants to blame someone? In society and in the United States since its founding, there has been a need to place blame. Imagine how the person being blamed would feel. Henry Wirz did not have to image it; he lived through it and died for it. Someone is always to be blamed, even if they were just following orders. Orders which can only go so far until humanity takes effect. Henry Wirz was used as a scapegoat for war crimes committed during the Civil War at Andersonville Prison, however that does not justify his acts or make him an American hero.
Also John Martin Fischer offers the idea of semicompatibilism, an idea that allows us to confidently attribute moral responsibility to agents even if we are unsure whether determinism is true.
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.
There are some cases where I am for this idea and there are some cases were I am against it. I believe that people are responsible for their actions but not all of them. They may be responsible for their actions but it wasn't their choice to carry out the action. Ultimately, the responsibility is theirs. If you were a pilot that carried nukes and the army demanded you to drop the bomb on a defenseless village. If you had a family back home that was living off your pay check and you decided not to bomb the target, your whole family would have to pay for what you thought was the right thing to do. What would the right choice be? To let your family suffer because you thought is it was wrong to bomb a certain place? This is like making someone choose between one form of torture or another, it doesn't really matter which one you pick, you get hurt somehow in the end. Another example is when you don't know that what you doing is wrong. Say you grew up on a different planet were it was acceptable to kill the weak people who had deformities. If you were to relocate to another place were it was wrong to kill the weak and you kill a person the first day you get there before you learn anything about any laws or anything. Would that person be responsible for their actions? He wouldn't the faintest idea of the laws in his new environment. It could have been just his natural instincts telling him to do what he does at home. I would think that was no one's fault.
civilization does have a substantial amount of the liability at the same time. Racial/ethnic biases,
As a result of predetermined and external causations such as our nature and nurture experiences, Strawson enhances the idea that all of our actions will always be linked back to these factors. If we were to choose another pathway or wanted to initiate a change in our current lives, it would inevitably be influenced by what was already selected for us: our genes and previous encounters that we faced as infants. Unless we were given the option to craft our physical bodies, beliefs, and personalities before birth, Strawson infers that since this is ultimately impossible, we can never truly be held morally responsible for our actions (Strawson 593).
Like I said before freewill is a topic that philosophers have argued about over the years. Most times when the question ‘do you have freewill?’ is asked, a lot of individuals usually say they are free even without thinking twice. Although there are a lot of philosopher that believe we all have freewill and there are also other philosopher who have spoken up and tried to prove their point that humans have no freewill. Philosopher that argue that humans have no freewill are called the determinists. The determinists argue
One of the most unique qualities that make humankind superior to animals and all known life forms is its consciousness and its free will. To make an argument about free will, free will must be defined by the parameters on which it exists. The values of good and evil will then be discussed on the definition of free will. In On Free Choice of the Will, by Augustine, translated by Thomas Williams, an important argument about free will and its relationship to how humans interact and its relationship to evil is discussed between two characters, Evodius and Augutine. The logical conclusions that the two characters come to about free will is reflected in other historical text such as Doctor Faustus, written by Christopher Marlowe. Augustine and Marlowe both clearly illustrate that evil is caused by free will.
Id, ego, and super-ego. (n.d.). Id, ego, and super-ego. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Id,_ego,_and_super-ego.html
What is free will (in other words, what do we mean when we say something like “we have (or lack) free will”?)?
Pascale points out that, in general, most people believe that it is the individual’s fault tha...
Upon committing a crime in Canada, a judge must determine not only if the accused did in fact commit that crime, but also if they were in control of their actions by assessing their state of mind. Accountability needs to be determined of an individual action to be convicted of crimes. An individual does not have accountability of their crimes if they have no knowledge of their actions or do not understand right from wrong. If the accused is found that they were not in control of their actions, and have no accountability to the crime they committed they are deemed not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (Nevid, Greene, Johnson, Taylor & Macnab. 2001). Regarding not criminally responsible individuals, an extensive assessment needs to be conducted and public safety needs to be accounted for. Canada has made great improvements on the criminal code and the way not criminally responsible individuals are cared for.
The id, ego, and superego play a vital role in a person's development of their personality. If thy work together in harmony a person will grow up to be a be a healthy mentally person.