'Only Hard Determinism is justifiable' Discuss. Determinism is the idea that all actions are governed by laws outside of one’s control. Some philosophers believer that one’s ability to make free choices is an illusion whereas, others state that there is something else beyond understanding that may cause one’s actions to be determined. There are a variety of theories which are response to dealing with debate about free will and determinism. Hard determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability.
If determinism is true, then we don’t have free will. Discuss. It can be argued that if determinism is true, then we do not have free will. However, this argument really depends on which stream of determinism is being referred to. The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this.
“Free will is an illusion. What seems to be freely chosen behaviour is really the result go internal and external forces acting upon the individual” Discuss this view. Quite simply, the idea of free will is that individuals have complete control over their life and their destiny. Believers of free will are of the opinion that human behaviour is the result of choices which each individual makes for themselves; external factors do not influence behaviour in any way. In total opposition to this belief is determinism, the theory that all behaviour is pre-ordained and we cannot chose our destiny so to speak.
As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect. If Mackie’s argument is to succeed, it must prove that this supposed normative aspect has no existence within any act in itself, but has its origin in the agent of said act, and as such, all moral claims are false. Mackie’s exposition of moral relativism comes in the form of two main arguments, the first being his ‘argument from relativity’, the second, his ‘argument from queerness’. It is with the argument from relativity that I shall be here concerned. The argument from relativity is based around the purely ‘descriptive’ idea that it is an empirically observable fact that there seems to be
It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinison with the concept of free will. There are 3 different views on determinism. Hard determinism, which is the belief that we have no free will, our actions are already planned so therefore we have no moral responsibility. On the other end of the scale there’s libertarianism, this is the belief that we have absolute free will, so we have full moral responsibility of our actions. And in between these 2 theories there is compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism, this is the belief that our actions are free but they are conditioned.
On the other hand, the school of freedom or free will believe that the behavior of humans is unpredictable on the basis of precedents but it is a choice of an individual. He can choose to behave and act the way he wants to do such action. Therefore, free will hold the individual responsible for his or her action and behavior. Now, the theory of free will is subjective in its nature and, thus, rejects the scientific explanation of the behavior. The history is full of philosophers who are advocates of determinism, but the freewill school of thought has also been a subject of argument in the history.
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.
For Kant, if an action is performed, based on the end goal or result, or based on the outcome, it is not moral. Therefore the Hypothetical imperative was no use because these judgments were not dependent on morals and they were dependent on outcome. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, are moral commands that tell eveyone what to do and do not depend on an end goal or outcome. According to Kant, these categorical imperative apply to everyone, because they are based on an adjective a priori of reason which Kant calls the categorical imperative. Kant broke the categorical imperative down into three rules which he called Maixms.
Centrists believe that solutions are more important than bias. While there is no set rule for what a Centrist is, there are some generally accepted guidelines that seem to depict the Centrist mode of thought”(US Centrist). What centrists are. Centrists are independent. Centrists argue based on reason and circumstance to define importance of a given point.
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.