(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. (Pereboom, 2009:308) The immense issue I have with soft determinism is that how can you have free will if everything is determined, this contradicts
In this case, the cause would be social conditioning – Baroch Spinoza said that although we may think that we are free, we are not, we are merely aware of our actions. “In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to will this or that by a cause, which has been determined by another cause, and this last by another cause, and so on until infinity.” This emphasizes the fact that we are contingent beings, and that although we feel that we have options in life, the choices that we make are in the end determined my one single factor, which started a chain reaction creating the world we live in today. The surrounding and environment we are brought up into and therefore the upbringing and social conditioning we receive it determined. Our actions are due to how
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
The claim that moral values cannot be derived from facts is grounded in the idea that facts are descriptive and informative whereas value propositions are prescriptive and imply that we ought to carry out certain action or act in a particular way. In essence, while facts give us information about the world itself, values tell us how we should act. It is accepted that facts are cognitive and are therefore know to be true or false. However, non-cognitivists support the idea that moral truths cannot be known due to the notion that any individual who is making moral judgements is not articulating their beliefs about the way the world is. Essentially, it is believed that there are no transcendent moral thoughts to be known or ascertained by individuals.
1. Explain what is meant by the term absolutism and relativism Relativism is the denial of any absolute or objective values like truth, moral goodness, beauty, etc. And the affirmation of the individuals; community or culture as the source of values. Absolutism is the view that values of truth, beauty, and/or moral goodness are independent of human opinion and have a common or universal application. The absolutist's view is that some statements are "objectively true," that is, true independent of whether anybody recognizes their truth.
Centrists argue based on reason and circumstance to define importance of a given point. They tend to be realistic and avoid extremes whenever possible. Of course an extreme may be required, so luckily Centrists tend to exercise reason in application. Centrists dislike special interest influence and unfair practices. They don’t appreciate spin from candidates or news organizations.
Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
Dissoi Logoi contains opposing arguments that can be argued either way. Its relevance to Rhetoric is that it allows us as readers to see that no argument can be made both bad and good, just and unjust, seemly and shameless. In our own minds we know right versus wrong, but not everyone has the same vision of what is right and what is wrong. What is wrong to one can be right to another and vice versa which appeals to the logos aspect of rhetoric. These notion of contradiction within this writing are rhetoric.
There have been efforts made by philosophers to reconcile the thoughts on determinism and voluntarism. Psychology being a science of human behavior does not have scientific laws to prove the presence of fate/destiny or choice. But that does not mean that the controversy ends, but it widens, since, some of the behavior is unpredictable and some behavior is voluntary. Therefore, a mid-way approach to the free will and determinism can prove to end the debate and solve the issue. For example, the illness, stress, and happiness are not choices, but they just really ‘happen’, whereas, the free will lets us achieve our goals and targets for a better life as a