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
Frankfurt’s Argument for Soft Determinism One has free will only if one is free to will what one wants to will One may be free to will what one wants to will but not be free to want that which she wants So one may have free will yet not be free to want what one wants Explain Free Will is when a person is free and morally responsible for his actions, then he could of acted otherwise. Frankfurt also calls this the Principles of Alternative Possibilities but he believes it is false so he provides a counter-argument for someone that lacked alternative possibilities but was still morally responsible. Suppose an Assassin intends to shoot the Victim. A Brainwasher is on the standby to ensure that if the Assassin doesn't follow through, the Brainwasher will manipulate the Assassin to shoot the victim. Frankfurt offers a new conception of free will that is compatible with Determinism.
However, carrying out research on animals means that important theories can be tested that would otherwise be too wrong to test on humans. As shown by Skinner’s research on operant conditioning that involved pigeons locked in cages and first starved. Another weakness is that because behaviourists believe all behaviour is learnt, sometimes behavioural therapies for disorders cannot actually cure someone, only remove certain behaviours caused by the disorder. For example if someone was suffering from depression, a big part of depression is how the person thinks but the behaviourist perspective may not be able to change the way someone thinks because it ignores cognitive processes; meaning the
Lastly, they question whether people are just born bad. Referring back to Clarence Darrow, the authors state that “Darrow believed that Leopold and Leob were “born bad” because they were born without feelings as pity and sympathy,” in which they may agree. However, Anthropologist John Townsend writes, that humans are wired for certain behaviors and the behaviors will emerge whether we want them to or not…but that does not mean that we have to act on it. Quotes: “We come equipped by nature with deep-seated desires that we can only resist with difficulty.” “We need an explanation for why some people, but not others, are able to resist the impulses that nature has given
Hence, it doesn’t exist. Following the above, everything God creates is therefore perfect, hence omnipotent, a quality coherent to the attributes of the god of theism. Again, Augustine attempts to take the blame off God by saying that evil is committed by humanity’s abuse of free will. Yet, God couldn’t have created humans without free will because the point of our existence would be lost, as free will differentiates humans and gives us individuality – it gives our life meaning and purpose. If we were not given free will, the lack of freedom and choice would render us similar to robots.
He said we all need conditional positive regard from our parents, and if we did not receive this is can lead to psychological problems in our future. Humanistic psychologists try to understand behaviour from the actor themselves rather than relying on observations. Behaviourists take the phenomenological perspective, this means that they take an objective unbiased view about something, and they go about studies scientifically. The humanistic approach looks at subjective experiences people have and analyse them from their point of view. All humanistic studies are conducted unscientifically.
When an individual puts others in danger because of their freedom they have abused their autonomy and should not be tolerated. If an individual’s drinking habits and drug addiction causes direct harm to other individual, their natural born rights should still be respected but they should be punished by the legal system. After being legally punished, if a drug addict or an alcoholic does not seek treatment and would like to maintain their current lifestyle, they should not have to be forced to get treatment. Just because someone is addicted to drugs or they are alcoholics does not essentially mean they are not capable of making rational decisions for
- Also, you cannot assume deindividuation automatically leads to aggression e.g. being anonymous in a peace rally or pilgrimage. Also Nurses uniform - This study is unethical – people were distressed and believed that they could not leave - However mundane realism is an issue. They knew it was not a real prison. Zimbardo only should have acted as the experimenter.
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. This theory is referred to as hard determinism If this is true, then the claim that we do not have free will seems fairly convincing. However there are more ways of looking at determinism through soft determinism and libertarianism. Broadly speaking, determinism is the position that every event could not have had another outcome, and therefore any decisions that we make as humans do not impact this ultimate outcome. This clearly is supportive of the title statement as if true, then all outcomes are already decided and therefore our decisions are similarly already decided by some sort of greater power.
Nurture is the cause to our behavior as well as characteristics, even though genes are what give us that certain spunk to our personalities, the environment has the power to alter it and make us into the exact opposite, as some say. “Nature vs. Nurture, Guirguis Shady; 2004” In conclusion, nature and nurture are tied in together in ways that many of us so not see, but only at times when it is pointed out to us, then we may begin to think which is which again? The nature and nurture are both very important in the study of human development, and without the other, does no justice to the creation God had made to design the human developmental process. Our genes are important because we inherit them and that makes us apart of our family, give us connection, helps us to understand what kind of person we are and even maybe why, but the environment has the influence to alter and also help to develop us in additional ways from our genetics. It is my thought that even the Bible is an environmental influence, one that can help us to become all that God has created us to be, as we willingly submit to His Truth as the Truth of God’s Word.