A Comparison Of Moral Responsibility And Free Will

1431 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Five philosophies of punishment

In this essay I shall explore the question of moral responsibility and free will, by looking at, and comparing, ideas that stem from a Kantian philosophical position, and those that stem from a naturalist philosophical position. I will also consider the implications that follow from each position, when considering the issue of punishment. Furthermore, I will show that although Kantian and naturalist philosophers typically differ in some aspects, such as their concept of the source of free will, they find themselves in much the same position when it comes to determining when moral responsibility is applicable. However, when we turn to applying moral philosophy to the important practical issue of punishment, the Kantian position becomes incoherent as soon as we consider the possibility that free will does not exist. Conversely, a naturalist position, particularly one of the consequentialist tradition, remains capable of answering such an important normative question, regardless of whether its notion of free will turns out to be correct or incorrect. Ultimately then, I will suggest that it is the naturalist philosopher who is in the better position to tackle the normative question of punishment, that arises in applied moral philosophy. For the Kantian philosopher, free will is key to morality, especially moral responsibility. For her, an individual cannot be considered morally responsible for an act, unless the act was performed after freely deciding upon it, and that the decision came about via the process of reasoning. That is, the individual reflected on a course of action and then decided to act, without being directed by alien causes, passions or impulses (Spark Notes Editors 2005). Furthermore, the individual must have had the... ... middle of paper ... ...s, the naturalist position is ultimately the more robust of the two, and capable of dealing with the normative question of punishment, that is of great importance to everyday life. Works Cited Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford. Dennett, D. (2014). Reflections on free will. http://www.naturalism.org/Dennett_reflections_on_Harris%27s_Free_Will.pdf Last accessed 18th July 2014. Korsgaard, C. M. (2012). Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press. Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank slate. Penguin. Rohlf, M. (2014). Immanuel Kant, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta(ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/kant/> Last accessed 18th July 2014. SparkNotes Editors. (2005). SparkNote on Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/kant/ Last accessed 18th July 2014.

Show More
Related

  • Pereboom

    1800 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Free Will and Determinism of Ayer and Holbach

    1810 Words  | 4 Pages

    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 this problem can be dissolved by the clarification of language usage and the clarification of what freedom is in relationship to those things that oppose freedom or restrain it. In either case, what is at stake is the free will of an agent, and whether or not that agent is morally responsible. What is to be seen from a discussion of these arguments is the applicability and validity of these two philosophies to situations where one must make a choice, and whether or not that person is acting freely and is thus responsible given his current situation. In this vein, the case of Socrates’ imprisonment and whether or not he acted freely in respect to his decision to leave or stay in prison can be evaluated by the discussion of the arguments presented in respect to the nature of free will in its reconciliation with determinism in the compatibilist vein and its absence in the causality of hard determinism.

    Read More

  • Bernard Williams's Critique Of Kantian Moral Theory

    1104 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.

    Read More

  • Libertarianism is the Best Philosophy

    1632 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Categorical Imperative And The Problem Of Truth

    942 Words  | 2 Pages

    The categorical imperative cannot be applied universally by all people in all situations. As the analysis of the murderer asking about an intended victim shows, the person answering the question will be forced to violate the categorical imperative with a lie or the truth to the murderer. By employing Kant’s own strategy of consequence-based reasoning in terms of law, it becomes equally apparent that the CI does not universalize across different legal systems without requiring maxims that cannot survive the universalization

    Read More

  • The Problem Of Moral Luck By Williams And Nagel

    1294 Words  | 3 Pages

    The philosophers Williams and Nagel have recognized a problem wherein moral assessment is based on forces outside human agency: called the problem of moral luck. As I find both philosopher’s solutions unsatisfactory, I will propose a superior settlement to the problem of moral luck by defining what is meant by moral luck, as well as by analyzing William’s control principle alongside Nagel’s ‘solution’. I argue that there must be acceptance of luck as a force of the universe, with individual’s moral accountability being determined on the risks that they take, and their understanding of the dangers of these risks.

    Read More

  • Philosophy: Kant´s Free Will

    1223 Words  | 3 Pages

    Do humans truly have free will or are their lives completely predetermined? This question of free will has and will always remain to be a place for argument in philosophy. Many of the great philosophers attempted to answer this question, but none did as well of a job as Immanuel Kant. He lays the basis of his argument in his Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics. Kant writes this prolegomena in response to David Hume’s of skepticism, and therefore, Kant is attempting to more firmly ground metaphysics. In the introduction Kant says, “I openly confess my recollection of David Hume was the very thing which many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a quite new direction” (Prolegomena). Kant makes a move towards critical philosophy versus skepticism. Kant was opposed to the concept that knowledge is gained through experience, which is essentially Hume’s platform. Kant attempts to use rationalism and empiricism to do this. His prolegomena was designed to make his philosophies more accessible to the general public. Further into his writing, Kant makes four theses, the third of which forms the argument for free will. “Thesis: There are in the world causes through freedom. Antithesis: There is no freedom, but all is nature” (Prolegomena). The argument being that we act in accordance with our own free will, versus the claim that everything we do is determined by nature. Nearly 250 years later this remains to be the central argument for or against free will.

    Read More

  • The Free Will Debate: Determinism And Free Will

    1070 Words  | 3 Pages

    Regardless of the fact that determinism is true, there is moral responsibility. When the sufficient conditions of “free will” have been met, an individual is said to have acted out of free will. No external or internal force is coercing the individual or forcing him or her to pick one decision over the other when he or she uses his or her criteria and past decisions to make the decision. Therefore, they make the decision on free will. With this said, an individual can be held accountable for their decisions and actions even if determinism is

    Read More

  • Metaphysics of Morals

    1153 Words  | 3 Pages

    Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.

    Read More

  • Kantian Enlightenment through Kafka's Colony

    1453 Words  | 3 Pages

    Of the many intellectuals who have offered answers to questions of morality, freewill, and enlightenment, Immanuel Kant is one of the most challenging and intriguing. His writings have been used as the basis for analysis of contemporary writings of every age since first they were conceived and published. Benjamin's views on law, the ethics of J. K. Rowling, race studies, and basic modern morality have all been discussed through the use of Kant's philosophical framework. (Gray, Mack, Newton, Wolosky)

    Read More

  • Kant's Categorical Imperative

    1532 Words  | 4 Pages

    Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Act Utilitarianism

    1042 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant poses the question of what the fundamental source of mortality is, or: What is it about people’s actions that make them susceptible to evaluation as right or wrong? He states that: actions of plants or inanimate objects, actions performed by animals out of instinct, and actions performed by humans involuntarily and not classified as right or wrong. Kant concludes that the source of morality is our ability to rationally make decisions, and our possession of free will.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Free Will

    1070 Words  | 3 Pages

    We live in a society that thrives on the ability to assign responsibility. People are shaped into good citizens by sets of laws and punishments. Everywhere we look we see people going about their usual business without worrying about their autonomy. In this essay, I would like to support the argument that the fact that we, as a society, are held responsible for our actions, demonstrates that we have free will.

    Read More

  • The Death Penalty Preserves Human Dignity

    2190 Words  | 5 Pages

    Ezorsky, G. (1972). Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment. Justice and Punishment. Albany, New York. State University of New York. Print.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Free Will

    861 Words  | 2 Pages

    Some Philosophers believe that free will is not required in moral responsibility. John Fischer states that “human agents do not have free will, but they are still morally responsible for their choices and actions.” Fischer is basically saying that moral responsibility is not as strong as free will (Timpe).

    Read More

More about A Comparison Of Moral Responsibility And Free Will

Open Document