The case of Mr.Puppet raises questions of determinacy with regards to the existence, or nonexistence as the case may be, of free will. The scenario presented is that a group of “evil” doctors managed to create and nurture a Hitler clone, named Mr. Puppet, to be evil. Mr.Puppet then embezzles money from a Lehman Brothers, a now defunct investment firm who is then caught in the act and murders the witness; Mr. Puppet is later arrested and the doctors come forward to say he is a victim of his circumstances. From this scenario one can see several clear questions which arise. The popular debate of nature versus nurture comes into question, i.e., is he evil because he is a clone of Hitler, because he was raised poorly, is it some combination of …show more content…
One might think of a divine plan, or perhaps the big bang created a chain reaction which created conjunctions which are wholly unavoidable. This would be the world of the hard determinist, where there can be no room for freedom at all. In such a world Mr.Puppet is clearly not free to act and his responsibility and blameworthiness are certainly suspect. If he could not act otherwise how could one blame Mr. Puppet for doing what was the inevitable consequence of actions beyond his control. A soft determinist approach would agree with the doctrine, but argue there is room for freedom. In a soft determinist approach you might agree freedom exists for actions which are free from coercion of outside force, the passive-determinist approach, or you may be inclined to believe you can make decisions independent of past conditioning and cultural expectation because of your own self-awareness, the active-determinist approach. In these views there exists a determinacy of actions, but these actions are no longer linear. Here an individual makes a choice, whereby that choice was affected by certain contingent antecedent conditions and certain necessary antecedent conditions,.e.g., I could have chosen not do this assignment as equally as I have chosen to do it; which is the result of the antecedent conditions which led to it being assigned, which will then lead to further
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.
A famous philosopher Socrates once said, 'the unexamined life is not worth living.' With that idea, the question 'Are Human Beings Intrinsically Evil?' has been asked by philosophers for many years. It is known as one of the unanswerable questions. Determinists have come to the conclusion that we are governed by the laws of science, that there is nothing we can do about ourselves being evil because we naturally are. Evil is simply the act of causing pain. In this essay I will argue that human beings are born with a natural reaction to 'fear and chaos' to be instinctively evil.
fate or determinism and say this was all planned out from the beginning of time knowing some things in nature happen randomly--
The debate of whether man is born entirely good or evil is a universal discussion that never seems to resolve. Even though a human is a complex individual who cannot be defined by a simple assessment, the people of today are convinced that there is a straightforward explanation as to why acts of wickedness exist. Some believe negative influences taint the naturally innocent heart of man, while others suppose evil men are born with an unavoidable capacity for darkness. This however, suggests that the wicked are created from birth without morals or the ability to be considered righteous. Despite the theories that exist, good and evil are not always separate. Man typically is neither solely good or bad, but a combination of the both. In the
It is a very arguable subject on whether or not people are born with good intentions, and therefore taught by others the ‘evil’ side of their personality. Whether it is the absence of ethical conduct in human nature, or just the way one perceives a situation, evil seems to be prominent in our everyday lives. Humans seem to have a moral code that follows them with every decision they make, yet despite the laws of morality and society, people of this world still seem to behave inhumanely because of the act of self-preservation, human interest, and who exactly the authority figure is at the time.
Some believe that it is influenced by the world surrounding them, or perhaps by personal experiences. It could be that we are exposed to the concept of it at such an early age that we are given our lives to ponder what we prefer. It is also said that depravity is laced in our genetics, passed on through generations. Whatever the case, the demons inside us can at times be inescapable. If it is true that somewhere in our destiny lies evil, it is impossible to hold back. It is a natural instinct for those who are given that gene to do horrible things, and that overpowers the choice they are given not to. In an article addressing the source of evil which discusses well-known figures such as Adolf Hitler, it is written that recent studies have shown the evidence of behavior and personality in DNA. The author of the article believes that it is impossible to attain such tendencies through inheritance. He states, “The fact that one child may turn into a bully or become a criminal and another not remains a tantalising mystery, and one that scientists cannot possibly explain in simple terms of DNA” (Masters). Masters is suggesting that the transformation from good to bad is a complicated process that involves many elements. It is an intriguing thought, how a mind can shift from one side to the other. The influence of evil is all around and it becomes a task to ignore what is being so aggressively thrown upon a person. One incident can have the power to spoil
An individual with “Free Will” is capable of making vital decisions and choices in life with own free consent. The individual chooses these decisions without any outside influence from a set of “alternative possibilities.” The idea of “free will” imposes a certain kind of power on an individual to make decisions of which he or she is morally responsible. This implies that “free will” would include a range of aspects such as originality, moral value, and self-governance. However, in life, individuals may not be free in making decisions. The aspect of freedom could entail remarkably a high status action and achievement in an individual’s life whose attainment could be close to impossibility. Often, people make
The concept ‘nature vs. nurture’ refers to the debate surrounding the influence of genetic factors and the environment in determining personality. It still remains contentious as to whether our personality is primarily determined by inherent genetics (biological approach) or by environmental conditioning (behaviourist approach). Shelley effectively embodies this life-long debate through the characterisation of Victor Frankenstein and the Frankenstein creature. She highlights the significance of the environment in creating personality as indicated by the influence of Victor’s home education and the creature’s character development. This essay shall hence illustrate that Frankenstein does not only engage with the nature vs. nurture debate,
Do I have free will, or is every action I make predetermined? This question has concerned me for a long while. It has been the topic of many family dinner conversations, a topic of research, and a question in many prayers. I believe that this question concerns many people, since finding an answer has been the source of much literature, thinking, and religion. I have, after much thought, arrived at the conclusion of Soft Determinism - the Principle of Universal Causality, that for everything that exists or happens there is a cause, is true, but this principle is compatible with the Condition of Free Action. By Condition of Free Action I mean that a person is in control of his own actions (is the source of them) and
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.
Does the environment that one grows up in contribute to alcoholism or is alcoholism determined by genetics? It wasn’t until 1991 that alcoholism was considered both a medical and psychiatric disease by the American Medical Association. Alcoholism is defined in the dictionary as a chronic disorder characterized by dependence on alcohol, repeated excessive use of alcoholic beverages, the development of withdrawal symptoms on reducing or ceasing intake, morbidity that may include cirrhosis of the liver, and decreased ability to function socially and vocationally. (dictionary.com). It is also defined as an addiction to the consumption of alcoholic liquor or the mental illness
(The Clown walks by Mr.Boyle and RACHEL looking sad. The Puppet King is following the Clown.)
In order to better understand where evil comes from, it is necessary to examine whether or not human fault is present in a person at birth. In “Explaining Evil,” Mark Bernstein boldly states, “There is evil in the world… [and] instances of undeserved pain and suffering provide us with our most poignant examples” (151). These undeserved sufferings include natural disasters, child deformities, or even simply an animal getting hit by a car. However, while Bernstein and others may argue that child sickness and deformities are a result of some kind of evil power, the claim can also be made that these afflictions rather are the cause of evilness. In Richard III, Richard affirms,
Not even four feet tall the stocky, little man in patchy, homemade overalls was every bit of invisible behind the massive haunches of Tiny, the circus’s eldest, and in his opinion, smelliest, African Elephant. Muttering obscenities beneath his breath, never missing a beat, Puppet shoveled heavy scoopfuls of dung off the boxcar's floor and into an old wheelbarrow, pausing only long enough to lean the shit stick against the wall before he grabbed the handles of the wheelbarrow, his dark complexion reddening from the weight, and headed out to ditch the stink someplace where it wouldn't be noticed until the circus was just a memory.