The True Nature Of Moral Responsibility

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

Compatibilism, in theory, is a world where everything is deterministic but accepts the fact that we have free will. David Hume summarized free will as, some actions are determined by internal interactions. Our internal thought process and physical needs are presumed to allow one to choose anything one may desire. He also stated that, other actions are determined by external constraints. Meaning the choices people make using

There are 3 basic views that can be taken on the view of determinism, (1) deny its reality, either because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; (2) accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or (3) accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will.In this paper I am going to be defending the view compatibilism, specifically W. T. Stace’s view of compatibilism.

The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three Free Will and Determinism views. It refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as

Compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, is the position or view that causal determinism is true, but we still act as free, morally responsible agents. In the absence of external constraints, our actions are caused by our desires. W.T Stace, wanted to prove that the hard determinist definition of “free” was incorrect. He posed that free does not mean random, but that our acts are casually determined in a particular fashion. There must be a deterministic or causal connection between our will and our actions. This allows us to take responsibility for our actions, including credit for the good and blame for the bad.

Stace, Frankfurt, and Wolf are all compatibilists. They hold that free will and determinism are compatible. In this paper, first I will define and explain key terms determinism, free will, and compatibilism. Next, I will discuss the individual views of each compatibilist and how they object to parts of determinism; then compare and contrast their views. They all believe in parts of determinism and parts of free will, even though determinism holds we are not morally responsible and free will holds we are morally responsible; thus, they are technically incompatible. This concept will be explained in this paper.

Moral responsibility is a concept that has, in some way, existed in every culture and civilization that recorded history can tell us about. From the Law of Hammurabi to beliefs in judgmental gods mankind has always assumed some form of moral responsibility—whether metaphysical or within a society. While pragmatic considerations of moral responsibility seem to be necessary for living within a society, the philosophic concept of moral responsibility beckons many inherent problems that must be resolved. Galen Strawson in “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” presents a strong argument as to why moral responsibility is impossible, while Susan Wolf responds to the problems presented, and argues that moral responsibility does exist in some

The first matter to be noted is that this view is in no way in contradiction to science. Free will is a natural phenomenon, something that emerged in nature with the emergence of human beings, with their

In “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Harry Frankfurt illustrates the concepts of freedom of will and freedom of action, but more importantly, Frankfurt has refined the compatibilism theory. Compatibilism allows the freedom of will to exist in the deterministic world. According to determinism theory, the future state of worlds is determined by some events in the distant past (E) and the laws of nature (L). More specifically, E refers to the history, such as experiences or states whereas L refers to scientific or physical law like gravity. For example, an alcoholic’s action is determined that he will not stop drinking. Here E is that he had been drinking in the past, and L is the physiological addiction effect caused by

Although Pereboom claims to agnostic about the truth of determinism, he argues that we should admit there is neither human freedom nor moral responsibility and that we should learn to live without free will. Pereboom’s view of hard compatibilist is not only the case if determinism is true, he argues that it is equally the case if indeterminism is true. Pereboom states that neither provides the control needed for moral responsibility.

As a society, we have certain expectations concerning morality and actions. When an individual’s behavior coincides with our societies’ expectations then they are deemed as ordinary because they are not an outlier. Though when the situation changes for individuals so do their actions and after an amount of time their new actions and behaviors become the norm. Even when the behavior fundamentally conflicts with their held beliefs. These middle-aged and middle-classed men were normal according to societies standards, yet once they were placed under what they perceived to be an authority figure they completed terrible tasks. Browning explains this with the

Moral theories can help justify the decisions that are made. Each theory has separate viewpoints in which other theories borrow elements from. Moral theories attempt to explain what it is that makes some actions right and others wrong. These are then used as a guide to making choices. They operate at a more general level than moral or legal principles and rules. The four main groups that one should be aware of are: Utilitarian, Kantian, Aristotelian and Feminist.

ABSTRACT: P. F. Strawson’s essay "Freedom and Resentment" was a landmark in the study of determinism, free-will, and morality. It contributed a much-needed correction to the problem of overintellectualization as found in twentieth-century compatibilist literature. Although most of the central claims in Strawson’s essay are important and true, it fails to fill the lacuna in the analysis, discussion and proposals of traditional compatibilism. The reasons may be summarized as follows. The web of moral demands, feelings and participant attitudes comprises a set of facts within human social life which must be investigated in order to understand the relation (or lack thereof) between determinism and morality. If the facts themselves fill the

Man can maintain a free will and be passive to the stimuli that affect him. Once this is realized, there becomes a sense of duty and obligation to reason the moral course of action. In this way, man is free from allowing nature to decide their course of action, and can decide to use moral law with their independent, free will.

When we think about moral obligations and their directional structure, this involves the obligations that we have to other people. “Obligations are owed to the benefactor” (Timmons, 2015). This means that a person is obligated to someone who tries to help another person in some way, shape or form. So, let’s say for example I promise you to walk your dog. Since I have promised you this I am not fulfilling my promise because I told you I’d walk your dog, or because I want to keep my promises to you, but I fulfill my promise of walking your dog because you have the right to me walking your dog. As we learned in our reading, you now own my action. You have the right to be angry or upset at me if I fail to perform the act of walking your dog. You are able to demand me to perform that action. I think the directionality has more to do with the relationship that is developed as a result of your promising rather than how good the person you promised feels after you have performed the action.