How can we determine what actions, if any, we're morally responsible for? At first the concept of the control principle was in practice until people came to realize that they didn’t actually practice this to the fullest degree; this lead to the creation of the idea of Moral Luck. Two philosophers with opposing viewpoints on the concept of Moral Luck were Nagel and Kant. I believe Kant has a good base for what he believes, but I don’t think he has all the answers as far as the role luck plays in our decisions.
To start things off we should discuss what the control principle is. "The control principle states: We should morally assess an agent on the basis of a factor, F, only if F is under the agent’s control". Basically we should only morally judge actions only on factors that the agent has control over. An example of this would be if we had two drivers on the road heading home. Assume that both of them are following all the rules and regulations of the road. All the sudden, a dog runs out in front of one of the drivers resulting in the dog dying. If you were to follow the control principle then both drivers would be morally assessed the same. The dog being killed was an uncontrollable factor to the agent. We should not morally judge him more harshly than the other driver because an uncontrollable misfortunate event took place.
The problem with the control principle is that if you follow it exactly then you really can’t hold anyone morally responsible for their actions. A lot of factors go into decisions and actions. It would be next to impossible to decipher every little detail of whether it was within the agents control or not. So, if following this principle, you would pretty much be saying no one is morall...
... middle of paper ...
...at all the parts you’ll see this was not his true intention. Jones was told that if he didn’t kill Smith then his entire family would be killed. Well clearly Jones is going to want to save his family. Now even though Jones has respect for Smith, he can’t place that above his family.
The actual conclusion to this given situation is that Jones had good intentions. He intended to save his family. Trying to save your entire family from being murdered by a hit man seems to be a pretty good intention in any rational human beings eyes. The fact that Smith and Jones be put in that situation may be a matter of luck, maybe even the act of shooting Smith was. This is irrelevant though when you’re looking to where the individual’s true intentions lie. Basically, luck plays its part on situations but it's more of where your intention lies in the grand scheme of things.
''Why blameworthiness is the wrong question'' is an informative article that exposes the reasons why the concept blameworthiness is the wrong word to ask in the legal argot. Eagleman proposes to replace the term with the word modifiability, which is a forward-looking term that will help build a social policy based on evidence. The relationship between human biology and the concept of free will, the reasons why blameworthiness is not the correct question and a forward-looking, brain-compatible legal system are the main points the author arguments on. I. Human biology and the concept of free will. Legal systems rest on the assumption that human beings have free will and are completely capable of making their own decisions.
Clifford makes a very strong and valid case for justifying every decision, regardless of how insignificant. Using his view of thinking, it is easy to understand why everyone has a moral right to justify decisions. Without the cooperation of society in making every decision a justified one, it is useless to hold someone accountable for an immoral belief.
In this essay, I will argue that though Strawson’s Basic Argument is sound, society has constructed a more applicable version of the term “acting morally responsible” which holds us all accountable for our actions. Firstly, I will provide a brief overview of the Basic Argument as well as distinguish between Strawson’s and society’s definitions of being morally responsible. Secondly, I will justify Strawson’s first premise. Finally, I will raise and refute the response of author Ian McEwan. In short, Strawson’s Basic Argument proves that we cannot ultimately be morally responsible for what we do.
I agree with Strawson in saying that we are not truly morally responsible for what we do, in a mental respect at least. Though it suffers from many faults, there are also ways to even more clarify his argument, as I will hope to do so in the following. First off, Strawson states that for someone to be truly morally responsible, we have to understand the points that he has given. The first being that we do what we do because of the way we are. These just states that the things we do and decide are based upon how we are in that moment, in mental respects. For example, when it comes to choosing what to eat between options A or B, I will choose option A because of how I am. But if you were to choose, it would be dependent on the way that you are
Annie Moore one of the people who died in Jonestown said these last haunting words: “We died because you would not let us live”. That chilling sentence says so much about the grip Jim Jones had on his followers. Once he had them under his control they weren’t even allowed to think for themselves let alone do anything else freely. Jim Jones started to lose it when the congressman, the relatives, and the media began to question what was going on in Jonestown.
...fortunately, when a person is given that much power and control over a large group of people their decisions as well as reasoning can become altered. In the case of Jim Jones his power lead to an enflamed ego, which led to a greed, not only of loyalty but of money. Money then lead to drug use, and in the end, drug use led to insanity. Those who are gifted with the ability to influence others have a huge responsibility. They must recognize what they have as a gift and not abuse what God has given them. Jim Jones is a person who had this gift as well as good intentions, yet he could not balance and keep in perspective that what he was doing was to benefit the world, not to benefit himself.
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.
Charismatic authority is when a leader gains followers simply by the strength of his/her character. Jones was considered to be very enticing for women and a very good role model for men. As opposed to the norms of other social groups, charismatic authoritarians were not leaders based on a written law but by the will of the people who serve him. Because charismatic leaders are not linked to tradition, they are a danger to established groups due to their lack of care for legal authorities. By blindly following a leader like Jones, who was a master of manipulation, members were not aware of the damage they were doing by the order of Jones. Charismatic authoritarians gain loyal followers more easily than law written organizations, for the people follow charismatic authoritarians by their own free will rather than requirement. Being a large group formed outside of written laws instantly deviates it from other established groups. Because of Jones magnetic pull he was able to convince his group members that everything they were doing including the mass suicide were for the greater good. Having an icon tell you that you’re doing something for the greater good desensitizes you to the task you were asked to perform. An example of this is that the majority of the members viewed the suicide as a ‘sacrificial’ act for American society. Charismatic leaders are dangerous in that
What makes an act moral? The reality is that there is no right answer. Different experiences and cultures an individual would identify with will naturally dictate the moral reasoning he/she would act upon. However, certain situations can only be regarded as either moral or immoral. This is shown primarily through the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. He argued that acts such as killing or lying are never justified and one must uphold that in order to be a moral individual. When Dr. Kevorkian decided to assist his patients in committing suicide he was ultimately responsible for the murder of 130 patients. Not only did he commit acts that are morally wrong, but also contradicted his oath as a physician. In this incident, there was no exception or
Furthermore, the film is highly inclusive, giving the viewer thorough detail not only about the religious organization, but also Jones himself. To start off, the film gives detail of Jones’ upbringing, how he behaved as a child, and certain psychological traits that could potentially explain why the incident happened. For instance, it was stated within the film that Jones grew up in a very poor family. His father, James Jones was an alcoholic, leaving his mother to provide for the family alone. As a result of his dysfunctional home-life, Jones grew to be
Mr. Jones Jr. committed three crimes, which eventually led to his death earlier this year. It was in the late afternoon on May 30, 1996 when Jones and one of his accomplices, Scott Nordstrom, entered a Tucson, Arizona Smoke Shop. One witness described Jones as having red hair, and was also claimed to have been wearing cowboy boots (Kiefer). Immediately after entering the smoke shop, Jones shot Chip O’Dell right between the eyes (Kiefer). Jones and Nordstrom continued to shoot and then Jones chased an employee, Tom Hardman, into the back room, where Jones shot him to death (Kiefer). In the aftermath, a third employee was shot and wounded, while two others were able to escape safely and unharmed.
Jones and his ways, because it was the last wishes of a dying pig. Mr
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
moral responsibility is what all of humanity struggles with and strives to achieve. Many forces
Moreover, in consequentialist normative principles " it require us that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action." Then, identify if the "total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences." If based in our analysis the good "consequences are greater," then "the action is morally proper. In the given situation, stealing for food for a hungry child suggest plenty of good consequences when we try to focus on the true and good intention of the agent. We may think that he is good because he/she is trying to save only the boy from hunger or even from tragic death. Thus, millions of children around the world had died because of