Freedom and Resentment by Peter Strawson Essay

In this paper I will present an argument against free will and then I will defend a response to that argument. Free will is defined as having the ability to make our own choices. Some will argue that all of our decisions have already been dictated by our desires therefore we never actually truly make our own choices. The purpose of this paper is to defend the argument that we have free will by attacking the premise that states we have no control over what we desire. I will defeat this premise by showing how one does have control over his/her desires through the idea of self-control. I will then defend my argument against likely rebuttals that state that there is still no way to control our desires proving that we do have free will.

Finney warned of hell vividly who promised salvation to converts. He rejected the notion of man as a sinful creature with a preordained fate. He instated every person had a choice to lead a Christian life and a life of sin.

The idea of choosing either one of these two factors will somehow seems vague. Equality without freedom is suffering and monotony (communism) whereas freedom without

1. Members of the Catholic or non-Trinitarians would be excluded from toleration under Maryland Law.

Were all the American grievances really justified, or were the British actually being more reasonable than most Americans have traditionally believed?

One of the greatest and more fundamental gifts of life is the autonomy that comes with being a sentiment human being. This hasn’t always been considered a human right, however, and many eastern hemispheres are struggling to catch on to the concept that people should be allowed to make the decisions they choose without the external pressure to do otherwise. Thus, the question that should be asked is whether or not every human being on this planet is free, whether they should be free and what does free really mean. For many, freedom is all about that ability to to choose what they want, make their own decision and be able to move around as they please. Freedom is about equity, free speech and the guarantee of life, no matter how good or bad.

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

A common theme emerged for the African American people; the government may say that everyone is in this fight together but we, as African Americans, now this is not true. From the segregated military to the non-willing acceptance of African American workers in wartime factories the African American people felt that they fought a two-sided war. This two-sided approach to war took a name for itself, The Double V Campaign. African Americans joined the fight for freedom just like all other Americans, but many thought this to be the time and place to advocate for civil right,

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

Determinists believe that these ideas are based on the illusion of freedom (Chaffee, 2013, p. 178).

With freedom comes true responsibility. What you do depends on who you are and who you are depends on your genetics and earlier experiences which human beings have no control and are not responsible of. You start to gain responsibility for who you are by your later actions. His idea that everything depends on your genetics and early experience plays a role. (4,2) Even with that it wont be able to restore your responsibility because when something is random it is uncaused. This is why human beings are not responsible for their own actions. An example of moral responsibility is if I had to choose between something. (4,4) I could be walking into the mall where I have the exact amount of money to buy the pair of shoes I needed to match my dress for a party. While walking in I was approached by a homeless man asking for money. I have to make my decision to walk right past the man and buy the shoes or give him my money. This idea I do not have the freedom to choose and I am ultimately responsible for the decision I make. A free agent can have irresponsible ultimate responsibility. They are able to believe in moral rights and wrongs, while still being able to deny the coherence of punishment and reward.

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

Freedom is a difficult doctrine to definite in politics (Berlin, 1969). Philosophy emphasized entirely determined by the public, particularly in sociology and economics (Swift, 2007). Liberty can clarify the distinction between negative and positive liberty, the following part of this essay covers two issues (Berlin, 1969). Meanwhile, the second purpose in this essay is to explore the implication of negative and positive freedom on the relationship between the individual and the states which will utilize different real instance in the world.

For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and

Walter Lippman writes on his beliefs on the subject of personal freedom in the article “The Indispensable Opposition”. The author draws from his personal knowledge and observations of natural human interactions in order, to support the basis of his argument. He utilizes repetition of the word freedom, an abrasive tone, and day to day natural occurrences in order to stimulate the reader into thinking about freedom overall and how it effects themselves as a common human being. Lippmann also uses Voltaire’s enlightenment ideas to provide a rebuttal to Lippmann’s ideas which he successfully argues in order to make his opinions seem more correct. All of these strategies help to convince the reader that freedom is taken for granted and selfishly abused when another being displays an opinion that we don't agree with.