Hospers and Free Will: An Analysis

1189 Words3 Pages

Question: If we do not have free will, should people be held responsible for their actions and therefore punished ?

Technical Terms:
- Neurosis is a condition developed by unpleasent events throughout babyhood which consequently triggers behavioral disorders.
- Id is an entity that dwells in the unconscious and is responsible for our most rudimentary desires and urges.
- Super ego usually works in contradiction to the id and is structured by culture, family and religion.
- ego is the mediator between the id and the super ego.

Author's Thesis: No, individuals should not be held responsible for their action. Nevertheless they must be punished.

Author's Argument: in " Meaning and Free Will" American philospher Jhon Hosper attempts to restructure the common notion of freedom. The point of his article is to demonstrate the flaws on the conventinal definition of a free action and provide a deeper understanding about the issue. His article begins by stating the ordinary definition of a free act " an act is free if and only if it is voluntary" (Hspers 653) and then follows with a series of examples where an act is performed voluntarily but evidently does not convey the idea of freedom. the common theme in these examples is an action being carried out under some sort of pressure or how he calls it compulsion. Hence, he goes on to refine the definition of a free act by suggesting that an action performed voluntarily and under no compulsion seems to be a sufficient condition to ensure that an act is indeed free. Nevertheless, he continuous presenting a different example where the refined definition leaves an air of dissatisfaction. With this new obstacle he decides to switch the focus of the article into the doer of the action and not ...

... middle of paper ...

... that shaped their unconscious. My reasons are simple: if we exempt people from responsability chaos would take over the world. what would happen with the justice department? Impunity would be a constant theme throughout the ages and living would be replace by surviving. This may sound exaggerated but with careful thougth this is a perfectly plausible scenrio. who would dictate morality if responsability is out of the picture. the implications are simply disastrous, punishemnt could not be enforced. under what law can someone punish an innocent person?, and I define innocent as someone without responsability of what is being charged. In a world without responsability anarchy would be the common law.Therefore responsability should not be subject to the reasons or causes that trigger an action but to the agent itself even if the causes are out of his power to control.

More about Hospers and Free Will: An Analysis

Open Document