We will stand by understanding the concept of determinism. Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position which states that for every, event, deed or action that happens, there are conditions, and given those conditions, there is nothing else that could happen that all events are determined by causes external to the will. Indeterminism, on the other hand is the concept that not all events are solely determined by antecedent causes, that, not events of all types are caused by prior events (Campbell 105). Compatibilism is the belief that both determinism and free will are compatible ideas, and it argues that it is possible to believe in both without necessarily being logically inconsistent. It is also of the essence to understand libertarianism which is a set of related political philosophies upholding liberty as the utmost political end.
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.
The highest moral right is liberty and from it any other goods will follow. These secondary rights could include freedom to get married, or be a musician, but these are to be pursued privately. Negative liberty is “freedom from”, only when an individual is free to make his own decisions and actions without coercion is a person truly free (Machan 5). This “freedom from” emphasizes right before good. 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 “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
It is important to note that although all moral absolutists agree that there are fundamental ethical laws they disagree on the origin or authority of these laws. They may be religious or like Kantian ethics based on God and the existence of natural law. In general there tends to be a consensus that Absolutism comes in three distinct types. Platonic Idealism is the first significant example of absolutist theory. This theory is referred to as the theory of forms, the forms are eternal constants which give meaning to the world.
It is impossible to reconcile any kind of determinison with the concept of free will. There are 3 different views on determinism. Hard determinism, which is the belief that we have no free will, our actions are already planned so therefore we have no moral responsibility. On the other end of the scale there’s libertarianism, this is the belief that we have absolute free will, so we have full moral responsibility of our actions. And in between these 2 theories there is compatibilism, which is also known as soft determinism, this is the belief that our actions are free but they are conditioned.
The difference is that utilitarianism states that no matter what a person should never stray from the moral that will bring the greatest good. Kant justifies that under certain circumstances one could stray from the moral as long as the truths are logically consistent and universalizable. Utilitarianism is broken down into two categories; act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. The act utilitarian believes that one cannot establish rules in advance to cover all situations, actions and people because they are all different. The rule utilitarian believes that there are enough human motives and situations to justify setting up rules that apply to all humans and situations.
The humanistic approach is essentially positive as it identifies the basic goodness of the individual. Roger’s concept of person centred therapy was a result of his experiences with patients. Rogers argued that all humans strive to reach their potentials. Rogers built upon Maslow’s theory. To understand Rogers and the person centred approach it is useful to look at Maslow.
Even though there are clearly a lot of similarities and differences, many people wonder whether the similarities are greater than the differences. Firstly, both modern and classical liberals shared the belief that humans are rational creatures, they believe that humans have free will and are responsible for shaping up that they become. They have the belief that humans are rational creatures who are different to everybody else and are not defined by their social positions. Liberals believe that each individual should be the best judge of their own interests and therefore should be governing themselves without forms of interference. Liberals also believe that the growth of human knowledge will enable society to constantly keep on improving with each generation advancing more than the previous one.
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