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.
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.
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.
He also believed that the most important characteristic of our personalities is created by how we treat others. While Chuang Tzu preached that things are categorized as good or evil. Everything is everything, and we make our own opinions on the level of goodness or the amount of evil. Chuang Tzu is also a complete anarchist. He believed that the world “does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed.” He also proclaimed that good order results spontaneously when things are let alone.
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’’.
For example they believe it is not the fault of mental people for being ill, there biology redisposes them to certain conditions, and can’t be changed unless manipulated (i.e. schizophrenia is due to a high level of dopamine) Free Will: • Manslow and Rogers stated external forces are inaccurate & people have free will so they can choose how to behave, he believed our actions are free within a framework. • Determinism too mechanistic & unfalsifiable, impossible to believe that behaviour is determined a result of the someone not accepting themselves or others around them (with regards to the
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.
Examine the role of conscience in Libertarianism (30 marks) Conscience can be defined as our belief on what is right and what is wrong. Butler stated that there is a principle working inside of us, it helps us “disprove or approve of actions... this principle in man is conscience”. This suggests that conscience is a final moral decision maker. In Libertarianism it is explained that we have complete freedom to act morally therefore we are morally responsible for our action. It is argued that conscience is the only true influence inside of us over our actions and that we should act with integrity and in a way that fits our principles and beliefs.
This further reinforces that we have no choice or influence on our lives and the events that happen, so therefore God will know the ethical decisions we will make as he has already predestined them in our lives. Hard determinism is the teaching that denies humanity has free will and believes that all actions have a prior cause. It removes moral responsibility for our actions. Hard determinists would therefore agree with the statement above, and will believe that God does infact know what ethical decisions we will make as he has already perceived it. This idea links to predestination in the fact that it believes everything in the universe- even human action- has a cause which precedes it.
Since every ethical system should evaluate itself as the best and only moral system, and every other system is flawed and immoral, it is assumed that moral judgements about ethical systems are meaningless. Moral Relativism rests on the belief that values are subjective. It is holds the belief that there is no objective morality, that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. Only that, moral systems are just made up and supported by the circumstances of the action. Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists.