Do we have Free Will? In this essay I will discuss the three positions of Free Will, Libertarianism, Soft Determinism and Hard Determinism. Libertarianism states that free will exists. Robert Kane (2011:24) states: Soft determinists are compatibilists who insist that determinism does not undermine any free will or responsibility worth having, whereas hard determinists are incompatibilists who take a harder line: Since determinism is true, free will does not exist (Kane, 2011:24). Libertarianism is the position I wish to defend, and thus will argue that, indeed, we do have free will.
Explain the concept of moral self and personality in Libertarianism. Libertarianism is the view that we are free to act however we are morally responsible for all those actions. Moral self and personality are two important concepts in Libertarianism. Moral self is how we decide what is right and and personality is an empirical concept, it is influenced by psychological factors such as gene, society and environment. Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices.
‘’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’’. The third imperative says that we as humans should all live moral lives; we cannot depend on anyone or anything else. "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." An important strength of Kant’s ethical system is that Kant does not specifically set any deontological rules. Kant talks about the Summon Bonum, ‘’the real object of our will’’, he says that we cannot achieve this without our own morality entering into the equation for making decisions.
Critically assess the claim that people are free to make moral decisions Before taking to this debate, it is important to explain what it means to be free to make moral decisions. A key stance in this debate is that of libertarianism, which holds that an individual’s actions are a result of their own choice, and thus to “critically assess the claim that people are free to make moral decisions” is essentially to “critically assess libertarianism”. It is the other leading stance of determinism, the belief that are actions are decided prior to the event by various life factors (genes and upbringing, for example) which shall be used to critically assess libertarianism, or as it is worded in this situation, the claim that people are free to make moral decisions. Some may argue that the claim that people are free to make moral decisions is an invalid claim, arguing instead for determinism. Such a stance states that there are laws of nature which govern everything that happens and that all of our actions are a result of these scientific laws.
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
The strongest criticism to the free will defense is that God, being an all-powerful being, should be able to create free agents who make only good choices, freely. There is the option of having no free will, and no evil, and have free will and having evil, but the third option, which is less known, is the option that God can create a world where free will is possible, and evil does not exist. This would be possible
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.
Politics essay Essay question – A) Outline the concepts of negative and positive freedom. B) What is their relevance for the concept of democracy? The word freedom implies that an individual is free to act as she/ he desires. Freedom implies that there are thus no boundaries to limit any human actions. Freedom is a topic which is strongly debated on and is entwined with the ideas of liberalism and other ideologies (Anderson, 2012, What is Liberty, para.1).Freedom can be divided into two sub- sections known as negative freedom and positive freedom (Heywood, 2007; 324).
With this thought in mind, how could I possibly acclaim the idea of freedom of choice to myself? Many questions have been brought up in regards to this topic. According to Compatibilists, we do possess the idea of free will. Compatibilists try and develop a certain sense of the word free in order to help better associate free will with determinism. Even though determinism is the belief that human action and many other things are ultimately determined by certain external factors not related to your will.
Because it engages the whole self without a fixed yardstick it can be called a personal reflection…. [I]n this reflection the self is in question; what is at stake is the definition of those inchoate evaluations which are sensed to be essential to our identity (117). Taylor makes this claim about responsibility for self in opposition to Sartre’s characterization of the human condition as nothingness and absolute freedom. Sartre derives from this condition an understanding of freedom as the radical, infinite openness of the freedom of our choices and concludes that it is this freedom that characterizes our fundamental moral dilemma. Taylor argues that it is not the weight of the openness that defines our moral selves or the moral dilemmas we face, but the fact that various choices necessarily blind and pull us in different directions.