Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
He believed that the government had an obligation to protect the citizens natural rights. But that was the only reason that the government existed, and if the people believed that the government was not fulfilling this task, they could overthrow him and find someone new. John Locke believed that good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational human being. These are the guidelines by which all
Hence why, natural laws such as gravity and motion assist in forming the basis for the cause and effect that fills the discussion of hard determinism. However, James Lovelock argued that according to GAIA theory the world changes, adapts and amends itself in order to survive and the human race is of little significance. Humans do not control nature, nature is in control. Philosophical determinism, like all forms of hard determinism, is based on the theory of Universal Causation. This is the belief that everything in the universe including all human actions and choices has a cause.
“Free will is an illusion. What seems to be freely chosen behaviour is really the result go internal and external forces acting upon the individual” Discuss this view. Quite simply, the idea of free will is that individuals have complete control over their life and their destiny. Believers of free will are of the opinion that human behaviour is the result of choices which each individual makes for themselves; external factors do not influence behaviour in any way. In total opposition to this belief is determinism, the theory that all behaviour is pre-ordained and we cannot chose our destiny so to speak.
Soft determinists therefore believe that events to be determined but also believe that free will does exist and still can be applied to our actions. Soft determinists defend compatibilist and say that even though they accept determinist thesis, we still believe in freedom. If we cannot establish that actions are completely determined then soft determinists have to believe in free will. If we knew everything then we might be able to predict a person’s actions but since this cannot be done and is a big if, which is the heart of the determinist thesis, turns out to be unobtainable in practice; this simply means that in theory we are still determinists but we can also believe in free will and hold people responsible for their actions. (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.
The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this. This theory is referred to as hard determinism If this is true, then the claim that we do not have free will seems fairly convincing. However there are more ways of looking at determinism through soft determinism and libertarianism. Broadly speaking, determinism is the position that every event could not have had another outcome, and therefore any decisions that we make as humans do not impact this ultimate outcome. This clearly is supportive of the title statement as if true, then all outcomes are already decided and therefore our decisions are similarly already decided by some sort of greater power.
Aquinas’ Natural Moral Law was developed from the ancient ideas of Aristotle and other stoic philosophers like Cicero, who all claimed that humans have an inherent and rational sense of right and wrong. The main premise of Natural Moral Law is that all humans should do good and avoid evil, and because of this, follows a moral code which can be found by observing nature, this code is what Aquinas called Natural Moral Law. The natural law is said to have originated from God’s eternal law. This then becomes discernable through the divine law (the Bible) and natural law (nature). Humans then incorporate both of these laws into human law, which is the basis for how we act.
There is an important relationship between freedom and moral responsibility. In ethics there are three broad philosophical approaches to the ethical question of free will. Libertarians are those who maintain that we are free to act and morally responsible for those actions. Hard determinists maintain that all human actions are effects, caused by prior influences. Therefore, humans may not be morally blameworthy for their actions because all of their actions are determined.
i) Analyse the key features of Natural Moral Law [18] The basis of Natural Moral Law is rooted ion Ancient Greece and the thinking of the stoics. Further developed by Aquinas in the 13tgh century, he fused Aristotle’s original thinking and his faith in Catholicism which resulted in the recognisable form we are familiar with today. We generally consider Aquinas to be the main exponent of Natural Law. The theory is deontological and is therefore concerned with the action itself as opposed to the consequences that may be caused. Furthermore, Natural Moral Law is absolute in its nature because it allows no exceptions to its rules and can be applied universally.
These aren’t named and so have to be decided upon the individual but they must follow the primary precepts. For example, when the primary precept is reproduction, the secondary precept may be that the use of contraception is banned. These secondary precepts are relative and Aquinas says rely on the judgement of the individual. The strengths of natural law are that the rules are universal and all cultures are able to relate to them and so the theory is absolute. For example, all culture believes that living peacefully in society and the preservation of life are important values to have.