Soft determinists therefore believe that events to be determined but also believe that free will does exist and still can be applied to our actions. Soft determinists defend compatibilist and say that even though they accept determinist thesis, we still believe in freedom. If we cannot establish that actions are completely determined then soft determinists have to believe in free will. If we knew everything then we might be able to predict a person’s actions but since this cannot be done and is a big if, which is the heart of the determinist thesis, turns out to be unobtainable in practice; this simply means that in theory we are still determinists but we can also believe in free will and hold people responsible for their actions. (Solomon, Higgins, 2010:235) Soft determinism maintains that we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, and that this is compatible with determinism, even though determinism is true a person can still be deserving of blame if they perform a wrongful act.
Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices. The libertarianism theory has been explained by CA Campbell, who said that human beings see themselves as free agents and therefore accept moral responsibility for their actions. Humans must accept responsibility for these actions and face any consequences that may come their way. John Stuart Mill - an influencal figure in Liberatarianism – believe we are free and morally responsible for all our actions. Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society.
Their intention is all that matters. Kant focuses on what should be done, rather than doing things for their outcome. This means that even if something terrible happens as the result of a morally good action, it is still morally right. Kant had an absolute view that the right moral action must always be done. Kant tried to make moral ethics scientific through universalisation.
Compatibilists believe that is the most correct thing to do. I believe that in order to have the idea of free will, you need to be free from certain constraints. Freedom is simply the idea of not being tied down physically or mentally to certain things. You have the ability to choose what you want to
Open Roads Peter van Inwagen thinks a compatibilists position is confusing, considering that it should be reason and logic how “choices” of an individual will determine free will and how it is that they define free will and a physically possible choice may determine an outcome. It is not clear when free will and determinism are compatible. For this, Inwagen demonstrates two views to understand and clear the confusion about compatibilist position. He says the easiest view to understand is the first one that gives a clear idea about futures that do not have a physically possible connection with the present are “open” to and individual. Second view is more difficult because compatibilist talk about reasonable futures.
Kant devised two different types of imperatives which allow us to make our decisions, hypothetical imperatives are the rules that we follow to attain a personal outcome or a selfish wish whereas categorical imperatives are intrinsically right. His first categorical imperative was meant to establish that humans should only act according to a law that can be universalised. ‘’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’’ – (Kant the moral order). The second of the imperatives is that we as humans should never use another human as a means to an end, treat them all with value. ‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’.
To support this theory, there is Saint Augustine’s idea that even thought the result of an action is fixed, this can still be guided by free will; William James is then proposing that our actions are not completely determined. This last one is a clear “compatibilist” point of view, because it accepts the existence of both, free will and causal determinism. A theological approach to this issue is then been brought up. This theological approach is then divided and some are supporting hard determinism, while others are supporting soft determinism. In
There is an important relationship between freedom and moral responsibility. In ethics there are three broad philosophical approaches to the ethical question of free will. Libertarians are those who maintain that we are free to act and morally responsible for those actions. Hard determinists maintain that all human actions are effects, caused by prior influences. Therefore, humans may not be morally blameworthy for their actions because all of their actions are determined.
What I believe that the definition of independence is the absolute freedom to do what you want, and to not be held back by any rules or laws of government or man, but by the rules and laws of nature and your own conscious. My view of independence may greatly differ form your beliefs on the definition but in this paper I will try to show exactly what my perspective on the definition of independence is by my experiences, my beliefs, my thoughts, and research on the subject at hand. Firstly, I believe that independence can not be the definition of what your government says is independent. If you go by what the government says is independent than why not go by Chinas definition of independence, or by the communists party’s definition of independence. If you are being governed than you are not truly independent.
When looking at Kant's definition of free actions: if it does not suffer coercion or constraint, either physical or psychological, for example not being afflicted with the threat of violence or an addiction then the action is free. However, Kant would also argue that our free decisions are still confined within the causal chain, thus it may have been free from a macro sense but the decision is, in many ways, still an aspect of causation. I could not have done otherwise. But, as it has already been established, Kant's notion of freedom is different to that of both the Determinist and Libertarian arguments, in the sense that, his argument follows the claim that: I could have done otherwise if the situation that led to my decision was different. However, Sartre would argue against Kant's understanding of freewill claiming it as