Throughout the modern era there has been much debate on what “willed” or “voluntary” actions are and how they interact with the modern man. Ethics assumes that human beings can be the origins of their own actions or in other words possess agency. Philosophers view people who have moral responsibility for an action to be moral agents. Actions that we “own” in this way are the ones we as humans decide to do. These actions are called “willed’ actions. The philosophical problem that arises comes from the fact that all actions have causes from which they follow yet humans are “free”. With these definitions at hand we can now discuss the sense in which one acts as a moral agent according to Millian Utilitarianism, Kant, and Aristotle. John Stuart …show more content…
A voluntary action occurs when the action originates in the agent. The action is the result of deliberation and choice of the best way to achieve an end. An involuntary action is an action that is due to an external circumstance such as compulsion and often causes the person performing the action pain. There are such actions that are called non-voluntary according to Aristotle, which are actions that are done out of ignorance and the person does not suffer or recognize that ignorance. Aristotle believed that one is responsible for their actions if and only if the action was …show more content…
This poses as a problem for our conception of moral agency. According to our concept of moral agency we are morally responsible for the actions in which we perform because we are the ones that decide to perform that said action and we are the source of our own actions. However, according to recent research, our brains have made the decision up to 7 seconds before we are even conscious of it according to a study by the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences. The study asked participants to freely choose what hand to press the button given to them and remember when they consciously made the decision of what hand to choose. Using an MRI scan, the researchers were able to predict what hand they would choose 7 seconds before the participants where consciously aware of their choice by looking at the activity in a specific part of the brain. This shows that our consciousness is not responsible for our actions as they are already predetermined before we are even aware of our decisions. This gives way to a dilemma. Moral agency tells us that we (our consciousness) is responsible for the actions we perform but modern science has just taken that concept away from us. If the science is indeed true, then we are not agents in the actions we execute and therefore we are not morally responsible for any of the action we take part
Do we control the judgments and decisions that we make every day? In the book,
Correspondingly, it is a problem due to the fact, if our own actions are not self-caused, then our desires and characters are caused by outside forces. In the same way, it is not a problem if the immediate cause of an action is our own desires and character, then that is sufficient for the action to be free. When given the ability to decide on your own, it is free will. For instance, a man was given a personal choice to commence. But he chose not to think and form a choice. Instead his friend made choices for the man. Basically, the man did not desire free will to decide on his own, he chose to be told what to
“The truth is that nothing can give us what we think we want, and ordinarily think we have. We cannot be morally responsible, in the absolute, buck-stopping way in which we often unreflectively think we are. We cannot have "strong" free will of the kind that we would need to have, in order to be morally responsible in this way” (…).
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory that can be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents.
Do individuals have free will, or are our actions pre-determined? Humans are mindful human beings. By suggesting individuals can select different ways to respond to any situation, you are suggesting that free will is involved. However, science continues to evolve and discloses new answers on human nature. A major influence in human behavior has to do a lot with an individual’s surroundings. It is believed that a great deal of our own being is the result of an individual’s upbringing, education, culture, or ethnicity. Many of the events individuals are faced with are beyond their control.
As a result of predetermined and external causations such as our nature and nurture experiences, Strawson enhances the idea that all of our actions will always be linked back to these factors. If we were to choose another pathway or wanted to initiate a change in our current lives, it would inevitably be influenced by what was already selected for us: our genes and previous encounters that we faced as infants. Unless we were given the option to craft our physical bodies, beliefs, and personalities before birth, Strawson infers that since this is ultimately impossible, we can never truly be held morally responsible for our actions (Strawson 593).
Philosophy has been a field of study for centuries. Some philosophers have developed ways to determine what is ethical and what is not. This has led to several normative ethical theories describing how people are ought to live a moral life. Some of the most prominent of these theories have set the criteria for morality in very unique and peculiar ways. Two of which are the ethical egoistic theory and the utilitarian theory, each seeing morality in its own distinctive way. By comparing and contrasting the view these theories pose on morality and by analyze how each stands in some of the world’s most modern day issues, one can understand why utilitarianism is a
As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsible for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualifies as a human act. The Libertarian view consists of one’s actions not being determined; however, have free will, which is a precondition for moral responsibility. Basically put, human acts are not determined by precedent causes. Libertarianism is one of the views under incompatibilism along with Hard Determinism. The opposite of these views is Compatibilism.
Furthermore, free will has been closely connected to the moral responsibility, in that one acts knowing they will be res for their own actions. There should be philosophical conditions regarding responsibility such like the alternatives that one has for action and moral significance of those alternatives. Nevertheless, moral responsibility does not exhaust the implication of free will.
Moral agency is the ability to make a moral judgement on the basis of the common perception of good and wrong in the society and have accountability for these actions. A moral agent is the person who takes this responsibility. Since time immemorial, there have been two forces in the world: good and evil that are determined by a man’s virtue or moral character. To possess a virtue is to be a certain type of person with a particular mind set. Case study analysis Harry, an 80-year old war veteran living in a small townhouse suffered a stroke that paralysed his whole body and was rushed to hospital where he was put under Intensive Care to support his life.
Since the foundation of philosophy, every philosopher has had some opinion on free will in some sense, from Aristotle to Kant. Free will is defined as the agent's action to do something unimpeded, with many other factors going into it Many philosophers ask the question: Do humans really have free will? Or is consciousness a myth and we have no real choice at all? Free will has many components and is fundamental in our day to day lives and it’s time to see if it is really there or not.
What determines whether an action undertaken by any agent is right or wrong? Lon L. Fuller's 1949 article, The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, provides a situation whereby the ethical definitions of right action are evaluated. The ethical study of right action consists of two major moral theories being de-ontological (backward looking/origin) and teleological (forward looking/ends). Both also have religious and non-religious strands. The de-ontological theory consists of the divine-command theory (religious) and Kantianism (non-religious), while the teleological theory is composed of natural-law theory (religious) and utilitarianism (non-religious). In this paper, all four strands of moral theory will be used to evaluate the Fuller article and decipher which moral theory best serves the argument whether the actions of the four defendants were ethically permissible given the situation. At the end of this paper, sufficient proof will be given to prove that the application of Kantian ethical theory regarding right action—the categorical imperative—with Christine Korsgaard's double-level theories is pertinent in bringing about a moral conclusion to the case involved.
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.