Octavia Butler Feminism

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.

One of the oldest debates in the history of Psychology is about Nature versus Nurture. Today, we know that both play a significant role in human’s life. Some people believe that it is genes which affects our way of life and some people believes that it is none other but our environment that greatly influences our lifestyle and some believe that both has tremendous impact on one’s way of life. Indeed in certain cases both our nature (our genes) and our environment roughly play an equal role in human life.

Determinism is a doctrine suggesting that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no alternative event. Free will is a philosophical term describing a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Understandably, the dichotomy between these two concepts is a topic philosophers have debated over for many years. As a result of these debates, a number of alternative philosophical perspectives arguing for the existence of free will, namely libertarianism and compatibilism, have emerged, existing in stark contrast to determinism. In order to ascertain the extent to which free will is compatible with determinism, one must first consider these different approaches to

Suppose that every event or action has a sufficient cause, which brings that event about. Today, in our scientific age, this sounds like a reasonable assumption. After all, can you imagine someone seriously claiming that when it rains, or when a plane crashes, or when a business succeeds, there might be no cause for it? Surely, human behavior is caused. It doesn't just happen for no reason at all. The types of human behavior for which people are held morally accountable are usually said to be caused by the people who engaged in that behavior. People typically cause their own behavior by making choices; thus, this type of behavior might be thought to be caused by your own choice-makings. This freedom to make

One of the main questions that we face is whether or not, we as humans have genuine freedom. Are we free to make our own choices? Do we decide what happens in our lives in the future? Or are our lives set pathways in which we have no say at all? Are all our choices already decided? In other words, do we have free will or are our actions pre-determined, or both? Hard determinists, libertarians and soft determinists all set out to provide answers to these questions, holding different views on whether or not free will and determinism are compatible. Both hard determinists and libertarians believe that free will and determinism are incompatible but hard determinists

Nowadays, people will claim that the world is on the verge of scientific revolution that leads to the most controversial idea; genetic engineering of humans. When science technology grows exponentially faster than moral understanding, therein lies the argument between these two aspects. One can argue that genetic engineering is some sort of vast achievement in technology especially in this modern era whereby people live in full of access. However, if we look closely at the impact of this technology towards human beings, genetic engineering has many flaws and ramifications that can be debated thoroughly. Arguments and points of view are explained by Michael J. Sandel, the author of “The Case Against Perfection” and Nicholas Agar, the author of “Liberal Eugenics”.

The future of genetic engineering results in ethical issues pertaining to the unlawful decision to design a child. D’Souza describes the possibility to design a child: “He envisions that, in the not too distant future, couples who want to have a child will review a long list of traits on the computer screen, put together combinations of “virtual children,” decide on one they want, click on the appropriate selection, and thus--in effect--design their own offspring” (D’Souza, 2010, p.810). Giving parents’ the authority to design their child affects the nature of the children. This authority will place parents’ in power instead of God. Then, D’Souza claims: “Gene therapy has already been successfully carried out in people, and now that the human genome project has made possible a comprehensive understanding of the human genetic code, scientist will possess a new kind of power: the power to design our children, and even to redesign humanity itself” (D’Souza, 2010, p.811).

The 1960’s was the start of new movements within feminism. Feminist found ways to branch out and discover new outlets that allowed them to express their political ideologies. Science fiction during this time, was a genre primarily known for being male dominated, specifically by white males. Science Fiction, gave feminist the opportunity to break the gender roles within the genre while also writing about theoretical future “worlds” that depict societies without present issues such as gender and social inequality. Science Fiction became increasingly popular with feminist because of the particular narrative that allowed them to develop their own societies that addressed contemporary issues.

A Clockwork Orange demonstrates the philosophically issues of free will and determinism through how the main character was treated in the movie. It also addresses important issues such as ethics, philosophy of the mind, free will and determinism, and the problem of perception. Philosophers such as John Hospers, B.F. Skinner, and Jean-Paul Sartre have different views on the issue through their theories of how individuals are or are not responsible for the free will choices that they make in life. The main character in the movie was a very violent , and reckless person. He participated in sinful acts such as being a gang member, raping women, being involved in fights, etc. These actions resulted in him being sent to prison and eventually being brainwashed into doing things out of his character. The three philosophers have very different interpretations of how the main character should have been dealt with and the reasonings behind his actions.

     Before one can properly evaluate the entire debate that enshrouds the Free Will/Determinism, each term must have a meaning, but before we explore the meaning of each term, we must give a general definition. Determinism is, "Everything that happens is caused to happen. (Clifford Williams. "Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue" pg 3). This is the position that Daniel, a character in Williams’ dialogue, chooses to believe and defend. David Hume goes a little deeper and explains in his essay, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Liberty and Necessity," that determinism is this: "It is universally allowed, that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and

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.

Is behavior learned? It is inborn? What of aggression, intelligence, and madness? There is a crucial relationship between the behavior of humans toward their own kind and the view of life they hold. Interest in behavioral genetics depends on wanting to know why people differ. According to Jack R. Vale, in Genes, Environment, and Behavior, recognition of the importance of hereditary influence on behavior represents one of the most dramatic changes in the social and behavioral sciences during the past two decades. A shift began toward the more balanced contemporary view that recognizes genetic as well as environmental influences on behavior. Behavioral genetics lies in its theory and methods, which consider both genetic and

Throughout history, our society’s socialization, or lifelong social experiences, has been debated upon quite vigorously. It is quite evident that we all obtain certain characteristics and abilities through heredity factors, but many still argue that this is not the only explanation for how our lives are determined. The argument of nature versus nurture is still being discussed by many, although both have been seen to have an impact on our life experiences.

Human character and behaviour are not only shaped by the genes that encompass the individual’s genotype. Human character comprising mainly of personality, sexuality, morality and intelligence are the products of genetic determinism as well as external environmental factors. “Single genes can have surprisingly strong influences on particular aspects of behaviour.” (Frank., 2009)

A multitude of modern day movies, books, television shows, magazines, have depicted a utopian society that manufactures and molds citizens into the “ideal” human through genetic modifications. This theme is omnipresent through these different forms of media and is seen as impractical and merely fictional. But how distant is this future? The advancement of human technology is proliferating and bringing along with it new forms of genetic modification. Procedures one once could not even begin to fathom are slowly but surely becoming our reality. With major progression in genetic modification, it is inevitable that discussion will emerge on whether tampering with genes prior to birth is ethical or not.