Bill Cosby Libertarianism

Diametrically opposed to hard determinism is a philosophical viewpoint with which free will is closely compatible: libertarianism. Proponents of this position, such as philosopher William James, maintain that humans are all free and therefore, liable for their actions. When making a decision, people “choose which path to take, and (…) are as a result responsible for that choice”. With this in mind, “the testimony of our direct, lived experience” is what offers “the most compelling grounds” for this argument; according to James, evidence of free will cannot be found through scientific study. Rather, the existence of free will should be determined by the average person’s “assumption that personal freedom and responsibility are valid concepts”. In short, the argument that libertarians assert is that free will should be believed in simply because the majority of the population believes in it. The existence of freedom will most likely never be definitively proven or

The question of free will has been a never ending discussion by philosophers and ordinary everyday people for decades. In this paper I will be analyzing the case of Ethan couch, a 16 year old boy accused of manslaughter under the influence of alcohol, from the three different viewpoints of free will; a hard determinist, a compatibilist and a libertarian. Then I will discuss which view I agree best with under the specific conditions of this case.

In the instance, the man kills himself due to reasons whose immediate impulses are internal but those impulses were formed due to some external causes. One such external cause might be that his daughter was kidnapped and the kidnapper called and said that if the man did not shoot himself by sun down today, then his daughter will be killed. But if the man kills himself by sun down, then his daughter will be safely returned to her mother. So in this case the man kills himself due to an internal impulse which is generated by an external cause. And in the instance where someone comes and shoots him, the cause is external as well. So in neither of these cases man is free. In the first instance when the man kills himself, he is bound by his love for his daughter and therefore does not really have a choice and in the second instance, he does not have any choice either. The conclusion is that choice does not really exist and even if it existed, it would not mean existence of free will. And complexity of the brain’s thought process when reconsidering a first impulse should not be confused with free will either.

Many Philosophers, such as Hoderich and John Calvin, believe that humans do not have free will to act in moral situations and that all moral actions have uncontrollable prior causes. Hard determinists, therefore, follow the belief that humans can not be morally blameworthy for their actions, evil or not, because their actions are predetermined. However, this is a ridiculous stance to take as humans are free to make moral choices, meaning they are entirely responsible for their evil actions.

Determinism is based off this notion that all events are pre-determined, without influence by human actions. If this is true, we can imply that people do not have free will and thus are not responsible for their actions. In Oedipus the King we see that the dichotomy of fate and free will is hazed by the hyperbole of events, which can make it difficult, but possible, to determine if humans even have free will. Through Oedipus’s flaws and decisions and Sophocles use of the imagery of a crossroad it is apparent that free will can be exercised in a meaningful way.

I concur with Wickham’s argument; Cosby’s refusal to answer this question is not helping his case. In an attempt to take the moral high ground by refusing to acknowledge these allegations as serious, he is convincing no one of his innocence. Cosby lost even more support after it was discovered in the deposition notes that he admitted getting quaaludes,. But I don’t think that he will admit it on his own. So much resources has gone into dismissing the allegations. But sexual assault is a serious issue. Just answer the question, Mr.

Determinism (as defined by Webster) is “A doctrine that acts of the will, natural events, or social changes are determined by preceding events or natural causes”. Likely, the most radical definition of determinism would state that all events in the world are the result of a previous event, or a combination of previous events. Within the realm of the all encompassing radical determinism there are philosophies that are somewhat better thought out or backed by science. One example of this is Genetic Determinism. We know that people are in some way determined by their genes both physically and behaviorally, as the human DNA is applied. Two categories of genetic determinism are Genetic Fixity and Innate Capacity.

Throughout the years, many different philosophical ideas have been presented to the general populace. One of these ideas, hard determinism, has presented alleged positives and alleged negatives. One alleged negative that stands out to me is that no single person is responsible for their actions, no matter how heinous that action may be. I argue, that throwing morality completely out of the equation, is a genuine negative of hard determinism.

78 year old comedian, actor, producer and director, Bill Cosby, has recently been accused of molesting and drugging over 50 women. Media has been hearing many stories from potential victims about how Cosby has been sexually assaulting them behind closed doors for the past few decades. People have been hearing the facts and stories from the victims, Cosby and prosecution from each side, how Cosby’s prosecution is trying everything in their will to drop the cases and how they have been treating the potentially victims throughout this whole process. Bill Cosby has been charged of sexual assault over the past two years. At least 50 women have come out to speak of the harmful things Cosby has been doing behind closed doors.

Hard determinism is the belief that every event has one cause and one outcome. Blatchford agrees with this idea that everything is predestined. He believes that to freely choose, one has to be able to choose alternative paths. According to Blatchford, in his essay “Not Guilty,” human behavior is compelled by heredity and environment. He believes that every event in human behavior is caused because of a person’s heredity and environment. Blatchford does admit though that our thoughts, desires,

Hard determinism claims all the actions of human beings or consequences of events are determined by external conditions, with such conditions satisfied there will be no choice of the results available any time. Spinoza, the philosopher who stood for Hard determinism was convinced that no free wills were available for anything in the universe. Those “Free will” existed in people’s mind were built on illusions, since they had ignored the actual causes to them. The hard determinism could apply to everything we neither might encountered in the past nor in present time. But I think the laws were found or formed by ourselves since the evolutions of the human societies in thousands years, it 's not correct to say that no choices are ever made by ourselves. And the key point is that most of the causal laws were found through scientific methods, but sciences has enhanced our power on predicting and even changing the progress that will result in a different end by discovering more causal laws as time passes.

To establish determinism, we can admit by denoting that some events in our lives happen because of prior reasons without yet losing our sense of freedom. It is actually evident that the events and actions that an individual undertakes action have different effects upon him even though they may be past or present events. Though we might not be sure whether our past event result to our present status in life, it is pertinent to note that freedom in decision making is an open forum for each individual and impacts on later activities. We can admit that some events, for example, a next domino fall, are bound to happen because of a prior event. It is possible that if we have no power to act other than us, in fact, to act, then we have no free will. This argument for hard determinism is persuasive. It is certainly valid, and none of the premises appears to be clearly false. Although we have discovered a plausible argument in defense of hard determinism, most people find this argument to be impossible to accept. In our lives, we hold each other in account of our deeds that we had made wrong choices.

I thought that Baron d’Holbach summarized the determinists viewpoint when he said, “Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant. He is born without his own consent; his organization does in nowise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 178).

Bill Cosby was charged with aggravated indecent assault involving “Temple University employee” that happen a decade ago. Andrea Constand the victim said that Cosby gave her quaaludes then sexually assault her. Constand filed a civil suit against cosby and demanding for the lawsuit to be public and Bill Cosby said “yes” to the question. Over “a dozen women claim that they were drugged and molested by the comedian”.

In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don’t have free will by addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third