Name Tutor Course title Date Free will: compatibilism. Free Will in philosophy refers to a particular kind of capacity of agents to choose or decide on a course of action from a variety of alternatives. The notion of free will has received a lot of attention in philosophy. Before we can examine it, however, we must understand some basic terminology. We will stand by understanding the concept of determinism.
If all my actions, my beliefs and my desires are determined by preceding conditions, how can I ever be free? This is the conflict presented by traditional theories of determinism and freewill. But analysis of such a concept of freewill shows it be incoherent. In this case, we must either reject the thesis that we have freewill, or reformulate our concept of freewill so that it is coherent. I will argue that such a reformulation is not only compatible with determinism but also necessary, if we are to maintain that we have any kind of freewill.
Does Oedipus control his actions, or are they predetermined by the gods? It is this question that puts forth another question unanswered: Is it fate or free will that lies at the heart of the Oedipus myth? Fate and free will are both present in the Oedipus Rex story and Sophocles expresses these ideas through imagery, irony, and many other literary works. According to Peter Voss in the article titled The Nature of Free Will, he believes that free will allows people of society to have control over their choices, and be responsible for them as well. But, we must be able to make these choices with awareness and understanding(Voss, “The Nature of Freewill”).
Erich Fromm Critique Essay In discussing obedience, people usually will think that obedience is the right thing to do, and disobedience is in the wrong. In Erich Fromm’s essay, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, he states that around different places, people all believe that the world we live in came about as an act of disobedience. In his argument, he states multiple examples taken from the Greek myth of Prometheus, and of Adam and Eve, with the Original Sin. Erich even assumes that the beginning of our race starts through disobedience: “[our] intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient..”(Fromm 684) With this statement, Erich Fromm strongly argues his view that “human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience.”(Fromm 683) In his article, Fromm discusses his reasoning for believing that history began with disobedience, and will end in obedience. Erich Fromm talks about the different kinds of obedience, and how they can help one’s society, or even destroy it.
Finally, I will state which viewpoint I agree with and give my reasons why. Determinism is stated as “the view that every event, including human actions, is brought about by previous events in accordance with universal casual laws that govern the world. Human freedom is an illusion” (Chaffee 141). As the definition bluntly states, people who believe in determinism believe that everything is predetermined based on prior events and people and do not believe that humans have free will. 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.
There are many types of file sharing websites out there, but for this paper we will focus on the website Napster prior to its file sharing demise in 2000. As previously mentioned, the Kantian theory teaches us that an individual has the ability to choose an action in any situation. According to this theory there are many selfish desires that drive individuals to do the immoral. These desires lead to people being used by others for an individual’s personal gain. Kantians believe in what Immanuel Kant, the founder of this theory, called “pure practical reason”, meaning that true Kantian theory begs us to ask the simple question of “what is the right thing to do?” To determine what the “right thing to do” is a Kantian would use one of the main focuses of Kantian ethics, the principle of universalizability.
God is all powerful and all knowing. Does the fact that he knows what we are going to choose before we choose it contradict free will? Do we have free will despite the fact that our upbringing, genetics, and experiences determine the people we are and many of the choices we make? In order to answer many of the questions I have stated above we must first understand three important concepts in the debate of free will, determinism, free will, and liberalism. II.Determinism According to the theory of universal determinism,
This is because the ruling class only want to benefit their own selfish causes. Thrasymachus is referring to the notion that the weaker class is exploited constantly by the stronger class; laws are put into place to benefit the selfish and greedy. However, as Thrasymachus continues to deliberate what justice is, he agrees that what is right can not always be just. As rulers also make mistakes, act out of emotion, and could put laws in place which can be harmful to those it should protect. Thrasymachus agrees with Socrates’ conclusion that a ruler does not exercise his authority with his own interest but
“Analyze Beccaria’s argument against the judicial torture within the framework of Enlightnment values, and explain if you find his position still relevant today.” Cesare Beccaria, an enlightenment era philosopher that argued against the many problems that were wrong with the judicial system. He argued against the judicial torture by using the enlightenment ideas, since torture it was a big concern in his time and that it was lacking fairness and usefulness. Beccaria’s fundamental faith that he truly believed in was that all human beings are rational creatures that can join each other in peace and harmony in order to achieve a mutual benefit. Since the enlightenment ideals consisted of a social contract that all made political authority a legitimate authority because of the individuals within the society who joined together for a mutual benefit. Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual.
In order to evaluate whether determinism leaves room for moral responsibility, I must first define determinism. In the scope of this essay, I will consider that which is generally viewed as “hard determinism.” I will then further argue that this rigid view of determinism is too stringent to be relied upon, and that a more fluid version would allow for the coexistence of both determinism and free will. Thus, I posit that determinism can be compatible with moral responsibility, insofar as we use the right type of determinism. Hard determinism generally posits that if determinism is true, every human action is pre-determined by conditions that have been set forth before the existence of a specific agent. It then follows that an agent does not act freely, has no free will, and is therefore never morally responsible for its actions.