The Moral Responsibility Of Free Will Essay

Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a

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

Harry G. Frankfurt addresses the concern of moral responsibility regarding the actions of an agent and the notion of free-will in his article Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility. I will first present “the principle of alternate possibilities”, as Frankfurt describes, and explain its relation to free-will along with the concept of moral responsibility. Afterwards I will incorporate Frankfurt’s argument that “the principle of alternate possibilities” is false and explain how one can still be held morally responsible even under certain circumstances, under threat, if the agent had an intent. Finally, I will propose that intention does not constitute an action and thus one would still not be morally responsible.

Due to my recent troubles at work I have been counseled twice in the past several weeks. This has given me a lot of time to reflect at the way I have really presented myself in the Army thus far. I have not always been the best Soldier that I could have been during most of the time I that I have been in so far. Thinking about this does bother me, it means that I could be trying harder to get ahead and better myself as a Soldier and a person. Lets say for example I have been late to work twice in the past several weeks not only to include missing a pt formation altogether. I did this by not ensuring that i had met alo of my neds to ensure that i woudl wake up in the morning. But by doing

Williams also delivers the idea of agent-regret which, to him, matters to the person in the unlucky case more than any extrinsic moral judgments. Agent-regret is defined as “thought being formed in part by first personal conceptions of how one might have acted otherwise”, (Williams, p.27), and required “a first-personal subject-matter” and “not yet merely a particular kind of psychological content, but also a particular kind of expression”, (Williams, 27). Hence, even if the driver A is morally treated as equal as driver B, the agent-regret of guilt may follow him to the

is false, because there are cases where a person is morally responsible for what she has done even if she could not have done otherwise (835-6). Call such cases Frankfurt-style cases. A lot of literature thereafter has been targeted on these Frankfurt-style cases, particularly whether it’s really possible to construct them. Among critics of Frankfurt, David Widerker (2003) takes one step further and he grants, for the sake of his argument, that it is possible to construct Frankfurt-style cases ; however, he argues that even so, Frankfurt’s argument still fails because there are counter-examples to Frankfurt-style cases, which are in favor of PAP (60-2).

will and moral responsibility. I will argue, that Frankfurt makes an invalid implicit assumption that the

Sartre proposes an interesting view on free will when he says, "either man is wholly determined or else man is wholly free." This quote shows us that Sartre believes that man is free to do what he wants. For Sartre, freedom is the most basic value, which renders possible all other values the way our fundamental plan precedes and grounds our small choices. In that sense freedom is the source of all values. It is not logically possible to make sense of human responsibility and notions of justice without a conception of free will. This is because it is free will that allows us as humans to choose and make the right decisions in life.

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.

The perspective that some thinkers have disposed the regards of morality itself: “principle of impartiality.” This principle claims there is no relevant difference between moral perspectives. Furthermore, Williams also adds his view on negative responsibility, which he believes to represent the “extreme of impartiality, and abstracts from the identity of the agent.” Meaning that negative responsibility represents fair-mindedness and should be based on objective criteria, rather than the basis of bias. Moreover, Williams also discusses the difference between consequentialist views and other outlooks. Williams uses two examples of negative responsibility to help illuminate the reader. One is “arbitrarily cut off…restrict the range alternate courses of action…” George and the older chemist and the other “presents one with the situation as a going concern…cut off questions about how the agent got into it...and moral considerations.” Jim

In this case we are introduced to Ben Freeman, an employee at the Provincial Power Corporation (PPC) for the past three years. Ben has found himself in the ethical dilemma of whether or not to steal the five hundred dollar holiday bonus fund from his work. Ben desperately needs this money in order to pay off his gambling debt and protect his physical wellbeing from the gangsters he borrowed from. His plan is to steal the holiday bonus fund and frame one of his coworkers Sue Macdonald in order to divert suspicion away from him. Ben knows that if he is caught stealing the money, he will surely lose his job.

Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility talks about the principle of alternate possibilities. The principle of alternate possibilities states that someone is morally responsible if they could have chosen to do otherwise. People who believe in free will are very supportive of the principle Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion. The principle of alternate possibilities, moral responsibility, and free will are all involved in this paper written by Harry Frankfurt. Frankfurt states that “its exact meaning is a subject of controversy, particularly concerning whether someone who accepts it is thereby committed to believing that moral responsibility and determinism

Is it better to be a man choosing wrong than a man who is forced to choose right?

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

If free will and choice are taken away to create a uniform society, is it morally right? This question is often posed in dystopian novels which usually point out the dehumanization that this control creates. But many people have different opinions on the extent of government control. “People decide according to their personal preferences. Some, whenever they see any good to be done, or evil to be remedied, would willingly instigate the government to undertake the business; while others prefer to bear almost any amount of social evil, rather than add one to the departments of human interests amenable to governmental control (Mill 13).” This theme is present in A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess because of the government attempting to take