More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay For Moral Responsibility
What is moral responsibility and how does it affect society
Essay For Moral Responsibility
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I agree with Strawson in saying that we are not truly morally responsible for what we do, in a mental respect at least. Though it suffers from many faults, there are also ways to even more clarify his argument, as I will hope to do so in the following. First off, Strawson states that for someone to be truly morally responsible, we have to understand the points that he has given. The first being that we do what we do because of the way we are. These just states that the things we do and decide are based upon how we are in that moment, in mental respects. For example, when it comes to choosing what to eat between options A or B, I will choose option A because of how I am. But if you were to choose, it would be dependent on the way that you are …show more content…
and how you feel at the moment. As we pass from this, we move on to the next, which simply put, states that for us to be responsible for something, we must have had control in bringing it about. For an example, lets say we go back to what we said earlier on the muscle spasm. Lets say that person A decided to purposefully punch person B in the face, we would say that he is responsible for his actions. But what if for instance person A had that muscle spasm and hit person B, but not with the intention of doing so. We would then say that person A is not responsible for what they did. The last example that we have no control over the way we are. Though we can all think that we have some form of being in control of how we are, Strawson uses the Nature vs. Nurture debate to say that our characteristics, personality and motives (CPM), are not controlled by us in any way. Our CPM is based on our genetic make-up, and how we were raised. For us to be able to be morally responsible for what we do, we must have had some way in choosing how we would want to grow in the mental respect, but as we have already concluded, for us to have any way to choose how we are to be, we would need the ability as stated in P1 or in other words, causa sui. With these three steps if you would, we can say that the conclusion to the basic argument is that we are not truly morally responsible for what we do and out actions, in a mental respect.
One possible vulnerability to the argument is that for this all to play out, the use of free will would have to non-existential, on the basis that all our actions and choices are kind of pre-made based on who we are and how we are at that moment. With this, the debate would be crumbled under any hypothetical circumstance that free will is a possibility, due to the fact that free will would not be based on whom we are or how we were raised, but solely on how we feel at given moment of time and all the factors that contribute to possible affecting out decision. Though it is not possible to clearly determine whether free will really exists or whether it is an illusion, we cannot 100% say that Strawson’s basic argument is correct or valid, but due to those exact reasons, we cannot conclude that it is invalid though what I talk about is more based upon which way sways in the favor od Strawson due to his argument having a very valid-like structure, with all the premises being more or less true. This in terms leads to a true conclusion, if the argument is truly
valid. Another objection that could be made is whether we do what we do based on psychological demands and whether our id and sub-conscious are making our decisions and actions for us. If we were to consider our sub-conscious a part of ourselves, we would have to say that if it makes a decision, or even effects the outcome of our decisions, we someway have a responsibility, due to the second premise, since we had some control of bringing it about. Though that is true, would it be the same if we are not aware that we are being influenced by ourselves to make this decision, then how would it be viewed. If a veteran who has never suffered from PTSD were one day to walk outside and then have a traumatic experience that made it seem as if he were still at war, then he proceeded to injure an innocent person, without being consciously aware that it is not his idea of an enemy, can we really say it was his fault. Would he be morally responsible for this because he walked outside, though he was not aware of his subconscious changing the way he thinks to bring about the accident? No, he would be claimed as mentally ill, or unable to do what he really wants to do because he himself is interfering with his decision-making.
Despite finding Harley’s article easier to absorb, I will be providing insight and knowledge of Scannell’s article “Dailiness” as I drew interest into his concepts and ideas behind the notion of temporality of everyday life. After Scannell’s reading, I could see myself reflecting different notions of time and ‘media time’, through his concepts of routinisation and the ‘care structures’ of dailiness I became exposed to the recurring cycle we live in.
I think that even when our acts are driven by an automated machinery - the brain, that should not be an excuse to exculpate us but instead an approach to find solutions. II. Why blameworthiness is the wrong question. Eagleman states that the question no longer makes sense because a person and its biology are now understood to be the same.
Another example of this could be a child operating a motor vehicle under the legal age. Though Strawson might say that if the child was raised in an environment where he was taught that doing that was okay by his parents he should not be held morally responsible, society would say the otherwise. Strawson’s biggest fault in his argument is not realizing that society has altered the definition of moral responsibility. Strawson is correct in saying we cannot control the person we are, but fails to mention that we also cannot control the rules dictated by society that we are expected to follow the moment we are
In “Luck Swallows Everything” and “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility” Galen Strawson and Susan Wolf’s explain the concept of responsibility in both a compatibilist and determinist view. Strawson argued that change was not possible at all when it comes to responsibility due to an individual’s mental nature, while Wolf argues that change is possible for an individual when it comes to responsibility. This essay will be focusing on the criticism of Wolf’s work.
An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, contexts, and consequences of those facts. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to any objects, or phenomena examined. The first piece Bush Remarks Roil Debate over Teaching of Evolution written by Elizabeth Bumiller, is an explanation. Bumiller addresses her points using facts rather than opinions, she also says, “Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, “I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.”(2), this signifies that this is an explanation and not an argument since he sees both sides instead of choosing one. For
However, this is entirely wrong, despite contrary belief, and Rée argues this with a high degree of effectiveness. His first example looks at a vixen, a female fox, who is contemplating whether to sneak into the chicken coop to hunt for mice or to go back to her young. In the example, the vixen comes to the decision to sneak into the chicken coop rather than to return to the den. Rée claims that she made this choice because her act of will was the result of the domination of the sensation of hunger and a few other determining factors at that moment in time (Rée, p. 441). Then, say, after some reflection, the vixen states that she could have acted differently if she wanted to. However, what she does not notice is that the degree of hunger and the existence of all other factors at that time evade her. She could not actually have acted any differently at that time than she original had. Her action of will was predetermined. I completely agree with this argument. The only way in which the vixen could have acted differently would be if different sensations were dominant over the ones that caused her original actions. If other sensations were present, then the vixen would have acted differently. This clearly illustrates that free will does not actually exist. If free will existed, then the vixen could actually have acted differently no
On December 2,2015 I went to to the Lynnhaven building to receive some feedback on my agreement paper for English 111. It was a very rainy day after running through the rain when I reached the writing center room. There was a yellow note saying that the writing center was in the student center until December 4,2015. After reading the note I ran back in the rain to my car.It was to cold to walk it was raining. As I approached the student center I was told by a security guard that the tutoring lab was located on the third floor. I had walked up three flights of stairs. When I had finally reached the third floor,I walk into the tutoring lab. There were about eight tables, but only four staff members and one student. Amen had approached me asking what did I need help with today. I replied saying that I would like some feedback on my paper for English. He then pointed to the writing table and said “she can assist you with your paper”.
He states, “A person may well be morally responsible for what he has done even though he could not have done otherwise”. Frankfurt defends the idea that one must be morally responsible in some sense rather than just blaming the past, in a rather pessimistic manner. He also suggests that you are not responsible if you could not have avoided the situation and decision that you made. In Harris’s case, Frankfurt would say that Harris could be held responsible for his actions even though there is a possibility that Harris could not have acted otherwise. In P.F. Strawson’s essay “Freedom and Resentment”, he states, “This is that the notions of moral guilt, of blame, of moral responsibility are inherently confused and that we can see this to be so if we consider the consequences either of the truth of determinism or of its falsity” (72). Whether or not you one has the ability to control their actions, they still have the freedom to express feelings and emotions subsequent to their determined actions. We experience consequences in regards to our actions and most would even say morally
Consider this argument: 'If the future is already determined, then it must be possible to know in advance what will happen. But, if that is so, then free will is impossible.' Do you agree? Is there any satisfactory way of acting freely if determinism is true?
Assess and explain Strawson’s critique of Descartes argument Peter Strawson is an English philosopher who sets out in his essay “Self, Mind and body” to argue against Descarte’s distinction between mind and body in favour of a unitary perspective on human beings which will be further discussed. Many philosophers have attempted to solve one of the major questions we can ask about ourselves revolving around the question of “what am I”. Rene Descartes is one the main philosophers who focuses his works in answering this query. Descartes’ arguments will be further looked into, where Strawson is introduced with his objections along with his contrasting claims. To begin with, Descartes wrote his series of six meditations which was initially set out
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).
Free will tends to be a topic where even the most non-philosophical person will have an extreme opinion on it and understandably so. The issue of free will has an immense consequence that affects even the most basic day-to-day activities in our lives. Specifically, free will is entirely intertwined with the idea of responsibility. Two contrasting views of free will are determinism and indeterminism, both of which threaten the idea of human responsibility in their own way. Similarly to most everyone else, I experience my own decisions as choices between genuine possibilities and this undoubtedly has an effect on how I could choose to commit to an answer on whether or not we have free will.
Suppose that every event or action has a sufficient cause, which brings that event about. Today, in our scientific age, this sounds like a reasonable assumption. After all, can you imagine someone seriously claiming that when it rains, or when a plane crashes, or when a business succeeds, there might be no cause for it? Surely, human behavior is caused. It doesn't just happen for no reason at all. The types of human behavior for which people are held morally accountable are usually said to be caused by the people who engaged in that behavior. People typically cause their own behavior by making choices; thus, this type of behavior might be thought to be caused by your own choice-makings. This freedom to make your own choices is free will.
Free will is a very complicated concept that has been found to be present in both humans and animals and, as such, it is difficult to prove, and even theorise, whether or not humans are responsible for their own actions. While it is a heavy topic of discussion in both psychology and philosophy, it is the implications of this that is the most important. Either way, crime and punishment and religion that is something that should also be looked at.
This world has turned into a place where people are required to take full responsibility for their actions and words. Often we do this informally, via moral judgment or if not through legal judgment. In other words we become morally responsible, deserving praise, blame, reward or punishment for an act or omission based upon one’s moral obligations, thus contradicting the concept of free will. Main viewpoints on moral responsibility interact with the following three, constructed by human action: determinism, compatibilism and libertarianism. A philosopher once said “Just as we separated the concept ‘free’ from the concept of ‘will’ in order to better understand ‘free will,’ so we need to separate ‘moral’ and responsibility."