Can Inhibit Freewill

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.

“The idea of free is opposed by that of determinism which, in simplest form, holds that every event has a cause. Id determinism is correct, then nothing happen that is not caused to happen by some other event, condition, or set of events and/or conditions—and this includes every thought and feeling we have, every choice we make, and every action we take. The logic of this idea is, for many people, less of a problem than its moral and legal implications. Not only does free will become limited (if not eliminated) under determinism, so too does moral responsibility or culpability” (Ethics, Crime, and Criminal Justice). Casey Anthony was free found not guilty when in reality there are evidence that she killed her daughter, Caylee.

Without this notion of freewill, there would be no need for a court system because human behavior could be attributed to purely external forces. However, there exist some people in our society who cannot exercise free will due to a mental abnormality. Instead of inequitably holding these individuals fully accountable for their actions, the law allows for an affirmative defense, known as the “insanity defense”. In both CA and Federal law, a defendant is found “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” (NGRI) if at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality of wrongfulness of the acts or did not know what he or she was doing was wrong. Known as the McNaghten standard, the insanity defense in CA does not consider psychopathy an excusable mental illness. Instead of being considered a mitigating factor like other mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, psychopathy is viewed as an aggravating factor during sentencing. For instance, in the 9th Circuit Court case People v. Harris, psychopathy was ruled not in itself sufficient to constitute a limiting circumstance. Even outside of the US, courts have generally found psychopathy to be an inadequate excuse for serious crimes. In New Delhi, a High Court stated in the murder of a seventeen year old girl, “It is the dominant view among psychiatrists and the law that psychopathy

Responsibility is a huge task to do in life, especially when you become an adult. Life is not always about having someone holding your hand and guiding you to the right path. Mistakes are meant to happen in life to learn and gain experience from them. In the article, “The Neurology of Free Will,” Angie Bachmann had a difficult life as a mother. Bachmann did not receive any attention from her family, so she felt very lonely. She was dealing with having to pay for the rent, feeding her children, and having to take care of her parents, almost like a single mother, because her husband was never around. I believe these factors did contradict with Angie Bachmann having an addiction with poker, but it was definitely her responsibility in

Galen Strawson refutes the idea that we have free will and claims that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions. According to his basic argument nothing can be the cause of itself or causa sui, and in order for one to be morally responsible for their actions they have to be the cause of one self. Therefore, since we are not causa sui we are not morally responsible for our actions. He claims that we do not have free will because we do actions that have a reason behind them and if a person acts for a reason they act that way because of how they are mentally. Thus, if no one responsible for their mental state they are not responsible for the actions that occur.

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.

Human factors are involved wildly in human behaviors and various social systems, including social laws and religion doctrines. Just like what I mentioned previously, scientists believe that the human life is pre-determined and human’s behavior is inevitable. They consider that if someone has all the information of one person, he or she may get to know how he or she is going to change in advance. But from the point of view throughout the history of human society people often turn to emphasize personal responsibility. Law and legal penalties for criminals act based entirely on the idea of individual “free will”. Most Jewish and Christian also believed that individuals should be responsible for the crime and suspects should be punished. We can imagine a psychology professor who believes determinism would say to a student: "You have to concentrate to your study, otherwise you will get nothing!" You can see the contradiction of human behaviors from this typical and ironic statement above, and notice that there exists a deviation between theoretical knowledge and actual human behaviors.

The Origins of Morality: How Nature, Nurture, and Especially Free Will Influence One’s Moral Framework

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

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

(Dialogue Magazine) — Like the lines in her drawings, Shantell Martin’s route to notoriety has been long, winding and unique. From East London to Japan to New York. The phenomenal artist shares some insight into her journey and works.

Casual determinism put simply, is the theory that all things happen for a particular reason and everything is predetermined. It is the idea all the events in one’s life can be explained, and each event has a particular reason for being. If everything is predetermined, then this therefore suggests that the future is fixed which further suggests that we can possibly predict the behavior of things. The theory of determinism ultimately suggests that we don’t the capacity to have free will because all future events are destined to occur, and furthermore we do not posses the knowledge to figure out whether it can be proved true or false (Hoefer). There has been three positions that have developed concerning the theory of causal determinism: hard determinist, compatibilist or soft determinist, and compatibilist.

Some people believe that no matter what a person does in their life, it will ultimately have no effect on the outcome ofa it. Existentialists find this to be true because they believe that no matter what they ever do, they will always die. Existentialists link the inevitability of death to the idea that there is no higher power. Additionally, existentialists hold the belief that no one should allow society to control how they live their life. Writer Albert Camus uses many existentialist themes his works like The Stranger and “The Guest”. The protagonists in both stories demonstrate existentialist beliefs in their actions. As a result, many existentialist ideas can be seen throughout out both novels. Camus uses the paradox of free will in order to illustrate the inevitability of death for everyone as well as the idea that in order to obtain free will, a person must reject society and face exile.

Imagine that somebody falls off their boat, gets stuck on an island, and then is hunted down. The same thing happened to Rainsford in Richard Connell’s story, “The Most Dangerous Game.” In it, Rainsford gets stuck on an island and meets General Zaroff who hunts people and is going to kill him, unless Rainsford kills him first. Rainsford, therefore, runs throughout the forest area trying to avoid being killed and hoping to kill General Zaroff as well. At the end, Rainsford did survive the ordeal, which means the General died. The theme that results from these events, though, is treat people the same way you want to be treated. The story illustrates the theme through its inciting incident, Rainsford’s goal, events in the story, and its resolution. Therefore, in “The Most Dangerous Game”, Rainsfords journey demonstrates how people should treat others the same way they want to treated, otherwise there might be dire consequences, such as life or death.

The neoclassical theory is a revision of the classical school when it comes to factors that might inhibit the exercise of free will. The theory defines criminal behavior as a rational choice; however, the theory didn’t examine every type of crime. Neoclassical focuses on crimes that are often violent or uncontrollable, and committed by offenders who appeared incapable of remorse. (Bohm & Vogel, 2011 pg. 21) They believed that in order to deter, reduce, or eliminate crime, it needed to begin with stricter child practices, enhanced punishments, and increased surveillance and security. When it comes to the punishment of crimes, the punishment needs to fit the crime.