Can Inhibit Freewill

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.

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.

Is it true that if you do something outside your free will, you should be held responsible? To clarify, doing something outside your free will means doing something you could not have done otherwise. To answer the question, I believe that yes, you should be held responsible. Ted Sider claims that you should not be held responsible, and uses the following example to support his claim: Suppose that you are kidnapped and then forced to commit a series of murders by the hand of the kidnapper. Sider’s example clearly shows that you should not be responsible for actions committed that you could not of otherwise, but I can provide an example where you can.

The question of whether humans can be held morally responsible for their actions is one that has been highly debated by many philosophers. Galen Strawson argues that we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions because we did not choose how we are mentally. If we cannot choose how we are mentally we cannot be held accountable for the actions that are performed based off of a mentality we did not create (Strawson 1993, pp. 6). Strawson’s main argument rests on this idea of causa sui which means nothing can be the cause of itself (Strawson 1993, p. 5). In this essay I will attempt to argue Strawson’s point by pointing out that we do have some part in deciding who we become mentally. Although there are

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

“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.

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.

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 prevalence and misuse of the insanity defense in our legal system is astounding. Cases upon cases site drugs, brain tumors, car accidents involving head injury, blackouts and antisocial behavior as circumstantial evidence of a crime that was committed. These crimes involve murder, rape and robbery. The question of where criminal accountability lies and how we are able to hold someone accountable for an act may boil down to the brain itself. Where in the brain do reason, morality and inhibition lie? If these areas are affected by some disorder does that then mean that a criminal is no longer held accountable for their actions? Is there a specific area of the brain where accountability

Around the world there have been many massacres and crimes conducted by people who have mental disabilities, personality disorders, and behavioral conditioning. In philosophy the argument between free will and determinism is if criminals should be held responsible for committing a crime. I believe that you cannot punish someone and hold them responsible if they have any mental illness or disorder that does not make them think straight and cautiously about their actions, this stand would be considered hard determinism.

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.

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.

In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness one important theme in the novel is predetermined fate. The lack of free will that Marlow exhibits points to a driving sense that he has only one way out of the jungle. Marlow's only mission is to find Kurtz. Tunnel vision captures Marlow's psyche and his want of destruction is only rivaled by his need to find Kurtz. Heart of Darkness exemplifies the absurdist and existentialist viewpoints that reside in literature written before and after human conflicts. Two other works that support this theme are a poem “The Old Sexton” and a modern novel, Fight Club. These works share similar motifs such as a nonlinear timeline and an ambiguous, unreliable narrator.

Another problem with the freewill argument concerns the value of the wills. For various evils like murder, theft and rape it seems that the freewill of the offender overrides that of the victim. This means that while the offender is free to act in a certain way or not, the victim’s will is diminished by the choice of his offender. In addition,