People have free will and are responsible for their actions. More specifically I believe in compatablism, which states that determinism and freedom are compatible. I believe that in the end we all have a specific place we finish, but it is through our actions and choices that lead us there. Take the example of a highway. People choose which lane they want to be in for the time they are traveling, but in the end they are going to end up at the same exit. As long as one is doing what they want to do, one is acting freely. This is harmonious with the underlying laws of being deterministic. Actions are determined by our thoughts, desires, and beliefs. Because they are determined by things such as these, they are appropriately our own actions. …show more content…
The Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment is one of these. The men in this experiment were in such a hostile and aggressive environment that it changed their identity and they began to actually have different thoughts and actions as they normally would. The students who were guards had so much power against the students who were prisoners that they actually started to believe that they were better than them and that they other students actually deserved maltreatment. Being in this new environment changed the identities of both parties. Philosophical scholars feel that this experiment challenges free will because the people involved are no longer their usual selves. They have transformed into beings that are not like who they were before the experiment began; therefore, should not be responsible for their actions. Nonetheless, I stand by the notion that the guards were still responsible for their actions. Their environment provoked them to act in this way but conscious choices were still made in the midst of the experiment to treat the prisoners a certain way. In the moments of the experiment, they chose to beat the prisoners and treat them terribly. Yes, the researchers allowed these actions to continue and did not make them stop, but the actions were done because of how the guards were feeling in that moment. They are …show more content…
This is used as a challenge of free will because most of the participants went on with “shocking” the participants on the other side of the wall even though deadly amounts of voltage were being transferred when the participants answered a question incorrectly. The aim of this experiment was to see how easy ordinary people could be influenced by someone of authority. However, these people who sent the shock made the conscious decision to administer the shock. The authority told them it would be fine, and they did it. They knew these shocks were harmful, but listened to the authority figure anyway. In this case, I think both parties are responsible. Obviously the authority figure is responsible because he is telling the “teacher” that the experiment needs to continue, but the “teacher” is doing the action even though he knows the shock is harmful. It seems to me that this is more of a test of obedience rather than free
In this study Zimbardo chose 21 participants from a pool of 75, all male college students, screened prior for mental illness, and paid $15 per day. He then gave roles. One being a prisoner and the other being a prison guard, there were 3 guards per 8 hour shift, and 9 total prisoners. Shortly after the prisoners were arrested from their homes they were taken to the local police station, booked, processed, given proper prison attire and issued numbers for identification. Before the study, Zimbardo concocted a prison setting in the basement of a Stanford building. It was as authentic as possible to the barred doors and plain white walls. The guards were also given proper guard attire minus guns. Shortly after starting the experiment the guards and prisoners starting naturally assuming their roles, Zimbardo had intended on the experiment lasting a fortnight. Within 36 hours one prisoner had to be released due to erratic behavior. This may have stemmed from the sadistic nature the guards had adopted rather quickly, dehumanizing the prisoners through verbal, physical, and mental abuse. The prisoners also assumed their own roles rather efficiently as well. They started to rat on the other prisoners, told stories to each other about the guards, and placated the orders from the guards. After deindividuaiton occurred from the prisoners it was not long the experiment completely broke down ethically. Zimbardo, who watched through cameras in an observation type room (warden), had to put an end to the experiment long before then he intended
Consider this argument: 'If the future is already determined, then it must be possible to know in advance what will happen. But, if that is so, then free will is impossible.' Do you agree? Is there any satisfactory way of acting freely if determinism is true?
Do individuals have free will, or are our actions pre-determined? Humans are mindful human beings. By suggesting individuals can select different ways to respond to any situation, you are suggesting that free will is involved. However, science continues to evolve and discloses new answers on human nature. A major influence in human behavior has to do a lot with an individual’s surroundings. It is believed that a great deal of our own being is the result of an individual’s upbringing, education, culture, or ethnicity. Many of the events individuals are faced with are beyond their control.
The ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
When put into the position of complete authority over others people will show their true colors. I think that most people would like to think that they would be fair, ethical superiors. I know I would, but learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment has made me question what would really happen if I was there. Would I be the submissive prisoner, the sadistic guard, or would I stay true to myself? As Phillip Zimbardo gave the guards their whistles and billy clubs they drastically changed without even realizing it. In order to further understand the Stanford Prison experiment I learned how the experiment was conducted, thought about the ethical quality of this experiment, and why I think it panned out how it did.
It is my choice to type or to write, my choice to get up and drink water, vs actions like grabbing my elbow when I knock into a door. The article has interesting implications about consciousness and how societal/religious structures affect the thought process. In regards to changing my opinion I think instead of changing it, the reading has expanded my idea of what free will is and how the human consciousness is perhaps performed. Before I hand I do not believe I had ever given much thought to how I decided to perform actions. I have more questions about where this experiment went further. It raised the question of, ok you know parts of how it is performed but now where is it coming from. What recess of the brain is sending the signals and what intern controls that. The veto aspect then comes into play and that is where the free will aspect comes in. The choice to act vs the thought of said action. In that way free wills is as exactly as I have conceptualized it. I can think about cheating on a test that I have been nervous about but I make the choice not to partially because society says it is wrong and partially because my definition of self doesn’t include that action. I don’t feel guilty about the thought because I did not perform the
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
Human beings always believe that what they want to do is ‘up to them,' and on this account, they take the assumption that they have free will. Perhaps that is the case, but people should investigate the situation and find a real case. Most of the intuitions may be correct, but still many of them can be incorrect. There are those who are sceptical and believe that free will is a false illusion and that it only exists in the back of people’s minds, but society should be able to distinguish feelings from beliefs in order to arrive at reality and truth.
If determinism is true, we are not responsible for our actions since our choices are determined by factors that we have no control over.
In life we are constantly questioning why people act the way they do. A determinist would say that freedom of choice couldn’t always be possible because our actions are determined by things that are way beyond our control. This view is known as the most extreme form of determinism; hard determinism. A hard determinist would believe there is no free will it’s an illusion everything is determined. Everything happens because of physical laws, which govern the universe. Whether or not we do well in life is far beyond our control. We may seem to have a choice but in reality we don’t. We shouldn’t blame people or praise people it wasn’t their choice. We are helpless and blind from start to finish. We don’t have any moral responsibilities. Some causes that are put forth by determinist are human nature; which means people are born with basic instincts that influence how they act. Another is environmental influence, which simply means people are shaped by their environment conditioned by their experience to be the kind of people they are. Also, social dynamics, which mean’s social creatures that are influenced by social force around them and psychological forces, which is people, are governed by psychological forces.
The prison experiment was meant to function in much the same way, the prevailing idea being that with no direction, the guards would become the teachers and begin to wield their inherent authority and power over the prisoners, or learners. To essentially prepare both sides for the roles they would play in the prison, Zimbardo instructed the guards to strip the prisoners naked on arrival to the prison before being fitted with chains and given a simple one piece prison gown to wear, with no underwear provided. This humiliation perpetrated by the guards and accepted by the prisoners set the tone for the experiment. The guards wore khaki pants and official looking uniforms, were geared with night sticks and whistles and as a finishing touch wore mirrored sunglasses to hide their eyes from prisoners. (Konnikova, 1) The guards worked in shifts of 8 hours and maintained constant watch on the prisoners. All of this created a sense of authority for the guards both in the eyes of the prisoners as well as their
The ideas of social psychology mentioned above can be applied to the Stanford Prison Experiment; in which the environment, the participants, and construals brought about behaviors that may not have been how the participants actually would behave in real life.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
Nature is complicated. It includes many different sorts of things and one of these is human beings. Such beings exhibit one unique yet natural attribute that others things apparently do not—that is free will.
Is how we act is predetermined by a number of factors beyond our control or are we simply able to make choices that are not determined by our dispositions or desirers. This notion of freewill has been debated by theorists for centuries. Hard Determinists say that how we act is due to a combination of genetic factors and the environment around us. A similar notion is Fatalism where how is act is predetermined by a higher power. However Compatabalists think that how we act is a combination of freewill and what environmental and genetic endowments have been bestowed to us. This paper will critically discuss these theories and how human beings are capable of freewill.