Are We Responsible For Our Actions

Determinism is the idea that the future already has a set plan. That anything we say, do, act, and how we even look is already decided for us and tends to limit our free will. Indeterminism comes with the idea that we are responsible for what we do because things tend to happen by chance not by cause. We have free will to decide. Strawson believes that both these concepts can prove that moral responsibility is impossible. I disagree with Strawson. I feel that in order for Strawson’s argument to be valid, it must rely on determinism only.

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

In the following paper I will talk about A.J. Ayer’s “Freedom and Necessity,” and I will explain the dilemma of determinism and Ayer’s compatibilist solution to it. I will explain some of the examples Ayer uses to explain the difference between cause and being constrained, and how both affect one’s free will. I will also discuss on why Ayer’s compatibilism solution to the dilemma is the best solution so far.

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”

The debate between free will and determinism is something that will always be relevant, for people will never fully admit that we have no free will. But, while we may feel that we control what we do in life, we simply do not. The argument for free will is that individuals have full control and responsibility over their actions, and what they become in life as a whole (The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson, page 16). Determinism, on the other hand, is saying that we have no control over our actions and that everything we do in life is determined by things beyond our control (Strawson, page 7). After analysis of The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility by Galen Strawson and Freedom and Necessity by A. J. Ayer,

For example, Strawson believes true moral responsibility is when someone is completely responsible for their actions. Through the story of heaven and hell, he reveals the idea that true moral responsibility is when it would be just to punish someone to eternal torment in hell and reward others with eternal bliss in heaven. However, he states that no one is completely responsible for their actions because they aren’t the cause of themselves; since one didn’t bring themselves into being, and isn’t responsible for the way they are (at least in certain mental aspects). For instance, for one to choose to be the way one is, they would’ve had to exist already and be in possession of the principle of choice; however, since there is no completion of the limitless succession of choices of principles of choice, then there is no self-determinism. Overall, considering the Basic Argument states that nothing can be the cause of itself (causa sui), and true moral responsibility is dependent on causa sui, then there can’t be true moral

The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three Free Will and Determinism views. It refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as

freedom of will, as presented in "Freedom of Will and the Concept of Person" and some problems that

The question that the textbook poses at the very beginning of chapter four is, “Are you Free” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 172)? Most people would look at this question as pretty cut and dry and would answer a resounding yes. Philosophically speaking, it is not that easy of an answer. You have to be willing to look at the question with an open mind, and ask yourself if the choices you make are truly free or if they are governed by forces outside of your control.

Sartre proposes an interesting view on free will when he says, "either man is wholly determined or else man is wholly free." This quote shows us that Sartre believes that man is free to do what he wants. For Sartre, freedom is the most basic value, which renders possible all other values the way our fundamental plan precedes and grounds our small choices. In that sense freedom is the source of all values. It is not logically possible to make sense of human responsibility and notions of justice without a conception of free will. This is because it is free will that allows us as humans to choose and make the right decisions in life.

Whether we have free will is widely controversial. The absence of a universal definition poses a primary problem to this question. In this essay, I shall base my argument on a set of three conditions for free will: 1) that the actor is unconstraint in his action, 2) the actor could have acted otherwise and 3) the actor must be ‘ultimately responsible’ (Kane, 2005: 121) for his action. After I have explained them, I shall apply these conditions to three scenarios that cover most, if not any, circumstances that occur when taking choices. The purpose of this essay is to show that if my conditions are true, none of the scenarios is based on free will and thus we do not have free will.

No, I believe that children should be held for our own mistakes. The reason why, is because we are doing the action. We must have put ourselves into the situation due to something we though, said or did. For example, children could steal money without asking for it. The child should never had stolen the money in the first place. It can get the child in trouble with your superior or elder. You are always a child especially around your parents or elders. In this scripture, James 1:14, we can be tempted through our own actions but, that doesn’t mean that it is adult’s fault. We can be tempted or lured just by wanting things that we don’t have.

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

Sartre’s stance states that humans have free will and that we are responsible for the entire human race, studies of the brain, however, prove that we are also influenced by many other factors and even the brain itself. Therefore, we cannot be held accountable for all our actions. Our criminal justice system has been plagued with the ideas of an individual’s free will and mental illness, Sartre’s theory of free will states that humans are free to do anything we please and at any time and that we are responsible for the entire human race. This theory has many flaws and scenarios that it fails to combat and satisfy. In reality, we are not free, but bound by our morals, laws, and even our health.

Millions of people die everyday because of life or death situations and even innocent. People shouldn’t These people shouldn’t be accountable for their actions because everyone makes mistakes. People should be responsible, for instinct when people get drunk and get into a car crash. Anything can happen at anytime, and some people die just to save another life like a firefighter. Some people are less fortunate than other people, can’t control when you’re gone die, many times innocent people die and they didn’t cause it.