The Philosophical Debate On Moral Responsibility

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

In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that

It offers a solution to the free will problem. Free will goes along with determinism because of the moral responsibility and it is incompatibility between each other. We are still held responsible for our voluntary actions and our actions are still determined. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism (McKenna). He or she can be morally responsible even if determinism is true, which there are logical reasons that this could be true. In this paper I will defend how compatibilism is tied up with both freedom and moral responsibility and give some examples that will support my argument for compatibilism. Also talk about the other two, determinism and libertarianism and give examples and then explain why I still agree on compatibilism. Free will is like a box of chocolates, unless you do not eat the free will chocolates, you will not feel guilty. How can one feel guilty for what they are compelled to do?

Throughout the years, many different philosophical ideas have been presented to the general populace. One of these ideas, hard determinism, has presented alleged positives and alleged negatives. One alleged negative that stands out to me is that no single person is responsible for their actions, no matter how heinous that action may be. I argue, that throwing morality completely out of the equation, is a genuine negative of hard determinism.

Exposition: In Galen Strawson’s essay “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility,” he presents the Basic Argument and argues it proves we cannot be held truly morally responsible for our actions, which is an invaluable argument in the free will problem. The Basic Argument is seen as an infallible argument. It claims that people are who they are based on the environment that they’ve been born. On the seventh page of the essay, Strawson breaks the ten part argument into five simplified premises. First, it is undisputable that

In “Human Freedom and the Self,” Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance, arguing that freedom is incompatible with determinism, that determinism is in fact false, and that humans do posses the kind of freedom required for moral responsibility. Chisholm argues that a deterministic universe, where all events, including human actions, proceed from prior events without the possibility that they would proceed differently than they do prevent the possibility that humans are responsible for their actions. To validate his libertarian beliefs, Chisholm sets out to prove that humans are responsible for their actions and also the thoughts that lead to those actions. In order to answer this problem, Chisholm believes we must make some assumptions about the man who preforms the act.

The aim of this essay is to prove that Libertarianism is the best of the three views, which refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. This essay will be strengthened with the views and arguments on C.A. Campbell. Campbell demonstrates that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the choices they make. I will present a few arguments in the essay in support of Libertarianism and attempt to rebut the views of others in this process. . As a result, this essay will prove that you are held morally responsible for any act that you perform.

People choose every day in different circumstances and degrees either small imperceptible one, such as the color of the shirt that they will wear, or huge emotional and moral dilemmas like an abort or a high-risk surgery. Nonetheless, there is always a decision made that has its consequences (want or not). Albert Camus uses characterization to address the importance of choices.

A problem with this idea is that it conflicts with both determinism and indeterminism, which are incompatible. Therefore, we should apply a new method of thinking to understand the concept of free will. This new method requires making assumptions about how we ascribe responsibility. According to Chisolm, we must allocate responsibility in terms of transeunt and immanent causation. Looking at free will in Chisolm’s perspective concludes that humans alone are the sole cause of the actions they perform and the state of the affairs they experience.

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

I assert that for a moral system to be necessary and applicable, there must exist a moral agent who possesses both the desire and the ability to choose. By denoting certain actions or ways of being as better, a moral system implies that there are also other potential actions and ways of being that are worse. The individual must choose between them. Without this element of choice, an action has no moral qualification. For example, a computer acts, but it does not choose its action. Consequently, while a computer can be judged better or worse in its ability to carry out an action, it cannot be judged responsible for the action. Rather, the person who uses or creates the computer is in fact responsible, for it is that person who chooses for it to act in a particular way. In a moral system, choice, responsibility, and the viability of judgment are linked inextricably.

Every person is seeking happiness, whether she knows this or not. Mill’s Utilitarianism outlines the facets of the philosophy of utility and arrives at the conclusion that happiness is the ultimate end which propels humanity. All our decisions, consciously or unconsciously, generate more happiness and minimize pain. Mill’s assertion is a bold one, as it serves as a universal thesis for all of the humanity 's behavior. The claim seems to boil down every person’s desires to one general idea: that we are all seeking happiness in some form or another. The justifications he uses include: explaining why every person desires happiness, how happiness has different components that people desire, and what constitutes desiring.

Reconciling moral theories and determining the compatibility of their particulars can be a daunting task. Determining the compatibility of John Stuart Mill’s modern moral theory of utilitarianism with Aristotle’s pre-modern moral philosophy will involve an in-depth exploration for each moral philosophy, comparing and contrasting the smallest details of each.

Are we Morally responsible? Can we be held accountable for what we do? In “ Peter Van Inwagen: The moral argument for freedom”, Inwagen explains his view on moral accountability. He strongly believes that we have moral freedom and have the ability to choose from right and wrong. Many Philosophers believed otherwise. Although it’s arguable, the most competent human being has the ability to judge their action before doing so and are aware of the outcomes. Whether you’re hurting someone or intentionally trying to destroy something. With the exception of those who are mentally disable, everyone has the ability to make such decision. Inwagen stated “... It is impossible for us to cease talking in ways that manifest a belief in moral

Moral Philosophy is rooted in four areas of standards, one of which is the central focus of Hedonist thinking. The standard of moral philosophy that corresponds directly to Hedonism is known as the Value Theory. The Value Theory establishes what is “valuable in and of itself, what is worth pursuing for its own sake”1. Goods that are valuable in their own right are intrinsic values, as referred to in the previous sentence. Contrary to intrinsic values, instrumental goods have the ability to lead to valuable things, but don’t themselves hold significant value.