(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. (Pereboom, 2009:308) The immense issue I have with soft determinism is that how can you have free will if everything is determined, this contradicts
The Naturalistic Fallacy is one of the main criticisms of Ethical Naturalism and would therefore suggest that ethical language is meaningless as it cannot be correctly defined, given that one cannot derive any moral statements from natural facts. Moore believed there are moral properties, so ethical language is not completely devoid of meaning but it is limited as ‘good’ is a non-natural property which cannot be
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
The prime mover is the thing that created everything and exists by necessity, therefore has to exist. It is perfect and cannot change, as the ability to change would mean that it is not perfect. This also means it is pure good as a lack of goodness means you can do better and doing better would require change. The prime mover cannot interact with the physical world and has no plan for us, going against the idea of God, the prime mover most people believe in. The prime mover is the unmoved mover, this is similar to the domino effect were someone (the prime mover) nocks over a domino causing the adjacent dominos to topple as well but the starter of the chain reaction is unmoved itself.
The first one is claiming that every single action is caused by a chain of events, therefore there is no free will at all, just events caused by a precedent one and causing another one to happen. This is then considered to be an “incompatibilist” point of view, because it considers the existence of free will incompatible with the precedent causal determinism. Another “incompatibilist” point of view is the “libertarianism” one, which affirms that there is no such thing as a causal determinism, but everything is just based upon free will. The last current of thought is the “soft determinism”, which claims that even though there is a chain of events, this doesn’t deny free will. To support this theory, there is Saint Augustine’s idea that even thought the result of an action is fixed, this can still be guided by free will; William James is then proposing that our actions are not completely determined.
Then every possible alternative is generated and with their impacts evaluated. Finally the optimal alternative would be chosen. This is the conventional process of decision-making suggested by classical theories. Simon, on the other hand, determined that this is not a realistic approach considering decision-making concepts, he argued that decision makes, who are human, is unable to be rational under environmental constraints and human incapacity. Also, these two factors can have impacts on the behaviour and rationality of the decision maker.
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
In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist. It would limit free will, and limited free will is not free will. The reason why it would be impossible for good to exist without evil existing is that we need evil to exist so that we can define it and understand what it is and how it works. After we find out that information, we could base what good is off of what evil is not, which is what we do now with
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one’s own, or one's groups, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fair-mindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of idealism by those habituated to its selfish use. Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought.
Some concepts, such as "Release", have huge moral issues. They don't really understand deep emotions, but everyone is content. They have no history and no defined society. Is this kind of society the best thing? I do not think so- it's better to have a real world with real emotions than to live in an over-controlled and robotic society.