Hard determinism is another concept on free will which views that determinism is true, and it is incompatible with free will, thus free will does not exist (Honderich 11). In this paper, we will look deeply into the concept of compatibilism. Compatibilists or soft determinists maintain and believe that determinism is well compatible with free will. Compatibilists thus define "free will" in a way that enables it to co-exist
In the philosophical view of determinism with respect to free will, it focuses more on the circumstances surrounding the agent instead of just the individual agent. A strength to determinism is that there is a cause for everything, therefore nothing is left to chance and that there is always a reason to be traced back to. On the other hand, the same theory states that agents are not responsible for their own actions because previous events dictated their behavior, and that is considered by many to be a weakness of determinism. Critics of determinism claim that having a universal view of determinism will lead to moral irresponsibility and moral decay (Nichols and Knobe 664). Compatibilism, also referred to as soft determinism, is “the view that all events, including human actions, are caused.
If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action. For example, if you were to lie, you are condoning lying universally so there will be no truth told by anyone, causing disruptions and disagreements. This is an absolutist stance because there are no exceptions to the rule. The Principle of humanity as an end not as a means is the second imperative. The action a person completes should not use another human to achieve a goal, this is because humans have intrinsic value and we have the innate ability to be rational and
According to Hospers The essential ingredient in all freedom from coercion by other is one’s basic and inalienable right; it is fundamental to human survival and the development of the self (Machan 8). The most fundamental right is liberty. When an individual claims to have a right, it is another’s duty to respect that right (Machan 7). All claims to right cannot violate any other’s claims to rights. Negative rights to libertarians are essential.
The “choice” here represents a decision between good and evil, which implies that there is always an inevitable non-predetermined possibility (of either evil or good or both), which may substantially harm or (and) benefit the others, the initiator (one who makes the choice), and perhaps, the world, that comes with this privileged free-will. C. Taking it literally, the word “free-will” means a discretion that is free-of-restraints. Since God has presented us free-will and if he monitors every action we make and prevents us from doing anything evil, what is free about this “free-will”? Consequently, let us be reminded that if God does not allow evil, there will be no rationalities in such a “free-will.” D. In addition, the significance of free-will is itself
Next on the basis of James Rachel’s argument against ethical egoism will try to answer the question posed. This essay will also discuss the common sense view is the most appropriate way to act in most of the cases. Ethical Egoism is a normative theory, a theory which states how one should behave. It states that promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality. In other way we can state that it is always moral to promote self-interest and it is not moral not to promote it.
The theory is a priori, some claim we out our duty a priori but it is also argued we need to refer to experience to work out what is right. On the other hand Kantian ethics can be seen as a strong theory as it also has its strengths. Kant’s theory is universal; it provides moral laws that hold universally, regardless of the situations. By doing this it promotes equality and treats everyone the same and is impartial because it is based on reason. The theory is objective, it gives objective standards, independent of our own interests, cultures etc.
One of the strengths of Natural Law theory is that it can be applied to any situation. This would mean that there is no need to look at specific situations circumstances to decide whether an action is morally right or wrong, you would just have to apply Natural Law Theory to it, regardless of any personal opinion, so therefore it is more straightforward. Also, because of this, this means that there is a certainty to the application of Natural Law in a society. If this was applied in every situation in a specific society, this would bring a level of security to the society, because there would be a set of base morals, which would be followed by everyone, and therefore making said society peaceful and harmonious. Natural Law Theory is a complete theory within itself, in that it contains everything you need to deal with character, motive and actions, and gives a day to day system for living a complete moral life, of which there is the benefit of fulfilling the purpose of which humans are designed to be on the Earth, according to the belief of Aquinas.
a) From a Deontological standpoint, what do you say? Why? A Deontological theory states that at least some actions are right and wrong, therefore we have an obligation to perform them or refrain from performing them, without consideration of the consequences. This theory follows the belief that our actions should be universal which means that everyone would act the same way with the same set of circumstances. It would be difficult to decide what to say, because I would want to be told the truth but would also want the best end result.
It then follows that an agent does not act freely, has no free will, and is therefore never morally responsible for its actions. Though the logic of this seems feasible, I argue that the consequences of hard determinism are unacceptable, as all performed actions are not fully pre-determined. I posit that determinism is only true insofar that actions are influenced by their pre-determined conditions. Rather than P1 inescapably leading to P2, it is more intuitive that the consequences of P1 influence an agent to perform a certain action. Further, I posit that there are an infinite number of possible actions to be taken as a result of P1 as determined by the agent itself.