We Can Be Held Morally Responsible For Our Actions Essay

“The Verdict” is a movie that deals with medical and legal ethics. Frank Gavin is an alcoholic who hasn’t won any of his cases in the past three years. Mickey, his former partner, gives him a medical malpractice case that is sure to settle for a large amount of money. The case of Deborah Ann Kay, a mother who was given anesthetic when she had just eaten inhaled her vomit and is now in a coma. The Donaheys, her sister and brother in law are hoping for a good settlement and Frank assures them that they have a strong case. While the case is going on he meets Laura, a woman at a bar who he falls in love with. Frank goes to visit Deborah Ann Kay in the hospital and is affected by her condition. He meets with the defendants who run the

Strawson points out in premise two of his basic argument that in order to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions one would have to be Causa Sui, in a certain mental aspect. Causa Sui is the belief that something is the cause of itself. Which he later says is impossible to be the cause of oneself. If his basic argument relied on the validity of premise two then it would be impossible

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

Strawson negates the pessimist’s argument because it asks us to make our attitudes wholly objective, which isn’t humanly possible, thus making this argument futile. He elaborates on the optimist’s view by introducing the belief that our moral attitudes are facts of our natural human commitment to interpersonal relationships and we are incapable of ignoring them. Regardless of determinism, moral concepts are relevant and they shape all human action, including the practices enforced by social institutions. Strawson says that because human action is guided by moral attitudes which we naturally form and are not constrained by any evident notion of pre-ordination, we are free.

Accountability is defined by department of defense as the obligation imposed by a law or lawful order or regulation on an officer or other person for keeping an accurate record of government property, documents or funds. The numerical end product of personnel accountability process reflects the combat power of a unit.

In many situations in my life, I have been personally accountable for my actions. Every part of being who I am has something to do with morality. Being responsible and accountable for what I do is something I take very personally. It is a key point in my personality and a critical part of being part of the US Army.

The world is constantly becoming an increasingly more dangerous place, and in this day and age, everything has a warning label. Whether it’s a hairdryer, a computer keyboard, or even a simple toy, all manufactured products and structures around us have a label stuck on the side to protect us. It seems as if at least one person has managed to hurt themselves with every product and attraction in the world. The poem “We Are Not Responsible” by Harryette Muller uses a familiar format, repetition, and underlying meanings to poke fun at the rules and norms of the society every one of us strive to achieve in.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

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

The question of whether humans are responsible for their actions or if they are under the influence of divine or supernatural power is one that has been debated over for centuries. There are three views that exist: the first is that there is only free will, the second view is that there is only fate, and the third view is that there is room and justification for both possibilities. The themes of fate and free will are very prominent in the book of Genesis and Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex. In both, the fate of the characters is decided by a higher being, but the way in which they arrive at their destinies is determined by free will and the choices they make, which leads to the demise of the characters.

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).

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.

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.

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