Are We Morally Responsible? Can We Be Held Accountable

Over the course of time, in the dominion of philosophy, there has been a constant debate involving two major concepts: free will and determinism. Are our paths in life pre-determined? Do we have the ability to make decisions by using our freedom of will? While heavily subjective questions that have been answered many different authors, philosophers, etc., two authors in particular have answered these questions very similarly. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher from the 18th century, argues in his essay “Of Liberty and Necessity” that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that they can both be accepted at the same time without being logically incorrect. Alike Hume, 20th century author Harry G. Frankfurt concludes in his essay “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” that the two major concepts are compatible. These two authors are among the most famous of Compatibilists (hence the fact that they believe free will and determinism are compatible ideas) in philosophical history. The question that then arises in the realm of compatibilism particularly, is one dealing with moral responsibility: If our paths in life are not totally pre-determined, and we have the ability to make decisions willingly (using free will), then how do we deem an individual morally responsible for a given decision? Frankfurt reaches the conclusion that we are held morally responsible regardless of

Individuals in life or death situations should not be held accountable for their action. They are obviously going to want to be alive and happy, and not die or live in misery, so victims would most likely do whatever it takes to survive. Whoever made the decisions weren’t fully thinking it through because we all develop mentally at a different age for children and adults. Individuals who are in life or death situations don’t put themselves in that positions purposely to where they know they can die. In situations like these, everyone feels stress to the point where they have no other option until it is too late when they make their final choice like what happened in “The Seventh Man”

Our common practice of thinking of others and ourselves as accountable is simply not justified!

fate or determinism and say this was all planned out from the beginning of time knowing some things in nature happen randomly--

The world is constantly becoming an increasingly more dangerous place, and in this day and age, everything has a warning label. Whether it’s a hairdryer, a computer keyboard, or even a simple toy, all manufactured products and structures around us have a label stuck on the side to protect us. It seems as if at least one person has managed to hurt themselves with every product and attraction in the world. The poem “We Are Not Responsible” by Harryette Muller uses a familiar format, repetition, and underlying meanings to poke fun at the rules and norms of the society every one of us strive to achieve in.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

Inwagen starts his article by providing the reader with definitions to the main topics that he will be discussing and arguing for or against. Although inwagen does not provide the reader with a clear definition of freewill, the definition can be taken from the way he presents his scenarios and arguments. After analysing Inwagen’s article, what In my prespective

If you went out one day and out of nowhere you find yourself in a life-or-death situation would it be your fault? People in a life-or-death situation should be held accountable for their actions because most of the time people know that if they do something that can put them in a life-or-death situation then something bad will happen but they still do it willingly. Another person might not agree with this claim and say that people should not be held accountable for their actions. The reason he or she might think this is because if when a person does face a life-or-death situation it might not be entirely their fault. The following reasons are examples of why my claim is stronger.

The question of whether humans are responsible for their actions or if they are under the influence of divine or supernatural power is one that has been debated over for centuries. There are three views that exist: the first is that there is only free will, the second view is that there is only fate, and the third view is that there is room and justification for both possibilities. The themes of fate and free will are very prominent in the book of Genesis and Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex. In both, the fate of the characters is decided by a higher being, but the way in which they arrive at their destinies is determined by free will and the choices they make, which leads to the demise of the characters.

One of the themes that kept standing out to me from Scandalous Obligation: Rethinking Christian Responsibility by Eric Severson is blame. Blame is what I believe to be in basic human nature, even as Christians. Even from chapter one Severson mentions blame and even affirms what I'm saying about blame being instinctual on page sixteen, although he calls it responsibility and states "Instincts, honed since childhood, drive us to find our way out of responsibilities when they can be avoided. Responsibility comes with hassle, cost, pain, and risk” (16). What I feel he really is talking about in the context of responsibility is blame, who is going to take the blame for the situation and how instinctively even from a young age, we try to find a way out of taking the blame, even sometimes maybe pushing blame onto

is false, because there are cases where a person is morally responsible for what she has done even if she could not have done otherwise (835-6). Call such cases Frankfurt-style cases. A lot of literature thereafter has been targeted on these Frankfurt-style cases, particularly whether it’s really possible to construct them. Among critics of Frankfurt, David Widerker (2003) takes one step further and he grants, for the sake of his argument, that it is possible to construct Frankfurt-style cases ; however, he argues that even so, Frankfurt’s argument still fails because there are counter-examples to Frankfurt-style cases, which are in favor of PAP (60-2).

“A person may well be morally responsible for what he has done even though he could not have done otherwise. The principle's plausibility is an illusion, which can be made to vanish by bringing the relevant moral

The incompatibilists argue that one is morally responsible for what she has done given that she could have done otherwise. Further, they think that if determinism is true then one could not have done otherwise, so if determinism is true, one is not morally responsible for things she has done. In debates surrounding the issue of free will, philosophers have focused on discussing whether determinism is true or false. Harry Frankfurt thinks even though the requirement of alternative possibilities in order to be held morally responsible for our actions seems intuitively plausible, it is a questionable premise in the argument provided by incompatibilists. Frankfurt calls the premise that “a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise” the principle of alternative possibilities or PAP (Frankfurt, 829). He argues that PAP is false and a person can be held morally responsible even if she could not have done otherwise.

every action we do is of our own design, and therefore we are morally responsible for the result of those actions. Of course there are exceptions such as being held at gunpoint, being hypnotized or driven by some psychological disorder. No-one would hold you at fault for actions you were forced to commit, but we do hold you responsible for other actions, ones we feel they were free to make. We feel appalled when we see someone kill, or act in an amoral way. This feeling - Campbell thinks - is what shows we must have free will; because without free will we can’t be held responsible for our actions. Yet when you see someone do something you as “why did you do that?” or “what made you do that?”; we ask for the

The chance and uncertainty of randomness is an explanation of freedom. Given this act it would break the causal chain and abolish determinisms freedom. (Doyle 1,2) For human beings to have free will they are required to have some sort of randomness. If their actions are a direct consequence of a random event they are not responsible for their actions. Interdeterminism requires certainty to establish the knowledge and the laws of nature. Strawson and Sartre have very different views regarding free will. Throughout the paper, the idea of responsibility based on our actions and the issues of human beings not having free will is discussed. I believe human beings are able to have free will based on the