Strawson's Basic Argument Analysis

me. Since the act which he did perform is an act that was in his power not to perform then could not have been caused or determined by any event that was not itself within his power either to bring about or not to bring about. Next, he gives another hypothetical situation in which under hypnosis a man was unable to do anything other than what it is that he did. Chisholm then asks us to use the same situation and replace hypnosis with the man's desires and beliefs with the same consequence that he could not have done otherwise. But, if a man is responsible for his own desires and beliefs then his is also responsible for the things that they lead him to do. So the question becomes, is he responsible for the desires and beliefs he happens to have? Chisholm uses this point to demonstrate a circumlocution in the determinists argument. If a man is responsible for his beliefs and desires then he could have refrained from the acquisition of that belief or desire. But if we assume that determinism is true then some other event must have caused him to acquire the belief. So since this caused him to acquire the belief he could not have done otherwise and is not responsible for his belief or desire. Later Chisholm says that if we are prime movers unmoved (a concept I will explain later) and our actions, or those for which we are responsible, are not causally determined, then

Strawson points out in premise two of his basic argument that in order to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions one would have to be Causa Sui, in a certain mental aspect. Causa Sui is the belief that something is the cause of itself. Which he later says is impossible to be the cause of oneself. If his basic argument relied on the validity of premise two then it would be impossible

At the same time, the Libertarians believe that people have “free will”, and there are no such inevitable results of those behaviors that are controlled by “free will”. Libertarianism has different meanings in different academic fields. From the general level, the libertarianism refers to people’s ability to decide whether or not to do something according to their

Now that it is clear what phenomena is to be investigated, I will turn to sufficient conditions for the existence of MR. I will be focusing on two accounts of sufficient conditions. The first being Pereboom’s account of MR as ultimate origination or self-determination and the second being Baker’s reflective endorsement view. Pereboom suggests that an agent is morally responsible for an outcome if and only if that agent was the ultimate cause of that outcome. Worded another way, a person is not answerable for an action unless they made a free decision at some point in the causal history of that decision. Fleshing out this point a bit further, it would also be necessary that the agent, at time of making that free decision, knew or should have

The article by Michael Binyon and the cartoon by Tom Toles make the claim that President Obama did not deserve to win a Nobel Peace Prize at the beginning of his presidency. Toles and Binyon share similar viewpoint, so they approach the subject in similar ways. Both of the speakers describe President Obama’s lack of accomplishments at the time he received the award. They both appear to pose strong arguments about this subject; however, the article by Michael Binyon seems to be stronger than the cartoon. Even though both provide effective arguments about the topic, “Comment: Absurd Decision on Obama Makes a Mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize” seems to pose the strongest argument because Michael Binyon was able to develop his claim and effectively impact his audience using background information, evoking strong emotions, and comparing President Obama to deserving winners of the past.

Strawson negates the pessimist’s argument because it asks us to make our attitudes wholly objective, which isn’t humanly possible, thus making this argument futile. He elaborates on the optimist’s view by introducing the belief that our moral attitudes are facts of our natural human commitment to interpersonal relationships and we are incapable of ignoring them. Regardless of determinism, moral concepts are relevant and they shape all human action, including the practices enforced by social institutions. Strawson says that because human action is guided by moral attitudes which we naturally form and are not constrained by any evident notion of pre-ordination, we are free.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

Kenneth Young’s mother was a crack addict who apparently stole from Jacques Bethea, who then threatened him to become an accomplice. Can he really be blamed for committing the crime? We all make bad decisions and we have to see someone like Kenneth Young is not all bad, that he is not defined by his deeds. Because if he is, we will, and always will be labeled as bad people. Philosophically speaking, the idea that all decisions are determined by previous causes is called determinism. Determinists will see Kenneth’s situation as inevitable, because they do not believe in free will. All actions are just consequences of previous actions. Each choice a person makes is impacted by previous life events. They will just see as his sentenced justified and rot in prison his whole life. But Kenneth chose a different path, he chose to fight and get his GED. The path he took represented libertarian free will, which believes in the ability to choose other than your determined nature. Kenneth presents an option where people can elevate beyond their determined

This formulation introduces the concept of doing something for the right reason not for an ulterior motive. The character of the motive is what dictates the adherence to the imperative. This is possible with autonomy, the decision to act according to moral duty without outside influence.

(PAP) a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise (829)

volition") as a first-order desire upon which the agent eventually acts, and an agent 's "second-order

Within the first chapter, Freeman lays out the books format by stating not only the topic of each proceeding chapter, but also paragraph summaries of each, almost as if giving an outline to an argument. This book is much like a staircase; building on top of the previous platform. Beginning with his theory on our intentionality, Freeman then branches to his beliefs on meaning, and how meaning is derived from intentionality. To the author, meanings are our personal interpretations of our intentional behaviors. Our self-estimations of the consequences of intentional behaviors creates what we perceive to be the meanings of our actions. This idea of

This entails that the 40-year old man’s decisions have affected others, and not just himself, therefore he is responsible for what he has done.

Duff = “responsibility is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of liability” An actor is responsible when they are sufficiently blameworthy in causing the harm or committing the wrong = we blame those who have control over their actions (committing a crime is a mental process)

Elaborate on Elizabeth Anscombe’s account of the relation between acting intentionally and acting for a reason.