The Theory Of Soft Determinism Essay

“The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people” - Charles Trevelyan. People in the world are here to make a purpose. It can always be for the betterment of earth, or even to cause havoc/destruction. But what if everyone was given the chance free-will? Sure, people make changes by their own will, but their will is based of what they can do with the perseverance of the good (meaning that it can be stopped by the good people, or supported by the good).. Free will means that there are no obstructions, and that anyone can do anything, whether it's evil or good. Because of this, by nature I believe that people OVERALL are naturally bad, unless there is something that can completely stop everyone from doing a dirty deed. Yes, some people are actually good and know that certain deeds are wrong to commit, but since others do not think this demolishing the image of humans. The are two powerful examples that proved this: the trilogy The Purge, and Adam and Eve.

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

Diametrically opposed to hard determinism is a philosophical viewpoint with which free will is closely compatible: libertarianism. Proponents of this position, such as philosopher William James, maintain that humans are all free and therefore, liable for their actions. When making a decision, people “choose which path to take, and (…) are as a result responsible for that choice”. With this in mind, “the testimony of our direct, lived experience” is what offers “the most compelling grounds” for this argument; according to James, evidence of free will cannot be found through scientific study. Rather, the existence of free will should be determined by the average person’s “assumption that personal freedom and responsibility are valid concepts”. In short, the argument that libertarians assert is that free will should be believed in simply because the majority of the population believes in it. The existence of freedom will most likely never be definitively proven or

There are those who think that our behavior is a result of free choice, but there are also others who believe we are servants of cosmic destiny, and that behavior is nothing but a reflex of heredity and environment. The position of determinism is that every event is the necessary outcome of a cause or set of causes, and everything is a consequence of external forces, and such forces produce all that happens. Therefore, according to this statement, man is not free.

The hypothesis of atavism, likewise alluded to as sociobiology, was an idea created by the criminologist Cesare Lombroso (1835 - 1909) that offers a natural clarification for criminal aberrance. His hypothesis expresses that criminal aberrance is acquired and this legacy is unmistakable in the state of the human skull. Through organic determinism Lombroso endeavored to demonstrate that physical qualities would be determinants of criminal conduct. His thoughts were a piece of the nineteenth century development known as positivism. Lombroso connected positivism to the field of criminology trying to make a field of concentrate known as criminal human

Many Philosophers, such as Hoderich and John Calvin, believe that humans do not have free will to act in moral situations and that all moral actions have uncontrollable prior causes. Hard determinists, therefore, follow the belief that humans can not be morally blameworthy for their actions, evil or not, because their actions are predetermined. However, this is a ridiculous stance to take as humans are free to make moral choices, meaning they are entirely responsible for their evil actions.

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

Taylor’s view on Libertarianism is very similar. He believes that one has inner acts and that they are the sole creator of the act (so, they could have done otherwise). He says that it is the only thing that makes sense. It is a denial of any antecedent acts, character and the similar. Furthermore, he says that all actions are caused, but unlike in determinism, they are all triggered by the sole author themselves. A sole author in this case is a human, one that is capable of being the first to cause a chain. The sole author can initiate an action through its

When I wake up in the morning, I have a set list of obligations for that day. Reasoning and habit dictate that I will follow through that set list, yet I am my own being and have control over my actions. I have free will and can choose to sleep in bed all day or get up and do my chores. While there are some situations where the consequences are out of our control, we still have the ability to decide when opportunities arise. Either extreme of this argument has its fatal flaws, as the determinist see everything as the product of a choice made long ago, and the libertarianist claims we have free will no matter how dire the situation is. Compatibilism makes the most sense to me, it is the difference between the two in an argument without a solution.

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.

During the Harlem Renaissance, many literary works concentrated on celebrating African American heritage. However, many other writers also began concentrating on the darker theme of naturalism. Nella Larsen’s Quicksand illustrates many elements of this movement. These include a biological determinism, where man is conceived of as controlled by his primitive animal instincts and a sociological determinism, whereby the weak are destroyed and the strong survive in a world of struggle and chance. Helga Crane, Larsen’s protagonist in Quicksand, illustrates the elements of both biological and sociological determinism in her inability to suppress her natural animal instinct to flee uncomfortable

On Walter T. Stace essay; is determinism inconsistent with free will he mentions that "morality is concerned with what men ought and ought not to do. But if a man has no freedom to choose what he will do…. how can he be held responsible for his actions?'' (728). Sometimes society can push an individual to commit actions that go beyond their morals and values. Although this example can also serve on how a citizen serves society based on the situation the individual was placed in. if society wouldn't have put this individual in a position that gives little free will corruption may occur providing the society with increasing violence rates and

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 claim being made in this scenario is that of a hard determinist viewpoint. Hard determinism states that as actions are all caused or a product of biological and environmental factors. In relation to praise and blame, hard determinists would therefore argue for the viewpoint that praise and blame are pointless as we have no control over our own actions. (Young, R., 1975). The opposite to this would be the free will perspective.

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