According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
To be effective the rewards must be desired by the target group e.g. financial inducements. * Legitimate power – generally known as authority and implies the power to act as well as the power over resources and is invariably limited in some way. * Expert power – which comes from possessing specialist knowledge and skills and is dependent on the expertise being recognised by those concerned, thus credibility is vital otherwise no one will take any notice. * Referent power – generally known as personal power or charisma and comes from the high regard the individual is held by others should this falter or wane then this form of power vanishes, but is often employed in conjunction with other sources.
If one was to experience both an intellectual and a physical pleasure (not necessarily at the same time) eventually they are going to have a preference of one over the other. It is of no moral obligation to choose other than having a pure and strong desire to choose that one particular pleasure. But that desire and decision makes it the higher pleasure. Mill has to make that difference clear because although it is up to the one who has done both
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.
Humanistic perspective is the view that argues that you are free to choose your own behavior, rather than reacting to environmental stimuli and reinforcers. The humanistic perspective on personality deals with human behavior. Humanistic psychologists believe that human drives towards personal growth and is based on the freedom to choose your own free-will. Excluding the environmental factors, humans are mostly conscious beings and are not controlled by unconscious needs and conflicts. They also believe that a person's subjective view of the world is more important than objective reality.
(i 13) It corresponds to the part of the soul that is involved with emotions and yearnings. Unlike nutritional growth or thinking and reasoning processes it doesn’t fall directly in either the rational or non-rational categories of the soul. Rather, it falls in the middle and is linked to both. Virtues of character are non-rational appetites and feelings concerned with reason because these sentiments alone don’t make a person virtuous. Only when these appetites are conducted by rational thinking, persuaded by reason can they become virtues of character.
One major strength of virtue ethics is that it allows the moral agent to make ethical decisions based on his or her moral well-being, not just based on what is legally right. Therefore this ethical system can be seen to have a greater weight over others as someone who follows it are doing so because they believe it’s right rather than following rules. This then also acknowledges that morality is complex and so rejects simplistic maxims as a basis for moral truths. However, this can also be seen to be one of the weaknesses of virtue ethics. Robert Louden stated that as virtue ethics is focused on the individual, it neither resolves nor attempts to resolve big moral dilemmas.
This makes the theory ‘agent centred’. A key feature for Virtue Ethics is philosopher Aristotle who stated that all series of actions are aimed towards ultimate end- happiness and that fulfilment is the goal of life (final and efficient cause). In Greek, the world telos means end/purpose. ‘Teleological’ approaches in ethics judges the rightness of moral actions based on how much they lead to achieve to fulfil a purpose, For Aristotle ‘happiness’ can be understood in three different ways:- 1) Happiness as a life of enjoyment or pleasure 2) Happiness as a free member of society 3) Happiness as a philosopher Therefore living pleasurably is not enough, we have a responsibility to live a good life! Another key feature of virtue ethics is Eudaimonia which is the idea of justified and deserved ‘happiness’.
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. Sartre’s example of an individual faced with joining the
He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT. John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent"). Act and Rule Utilitarianism We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES.