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.
Identify and discuss possible problems with the Stoic notion of fate? Stoics learned that our lives are not entirely our own. The complain about what they could not control. The Stoics chose to master what they could – their own minds. They also believed that serenity comes to those whose will is in according with the World reason, the Logos.
However, there is also another part called Ego that works contrary to what the Id does. So it is completely up to the individual whether which one defeats the other. If the Id wins, then one will be more likely to regret what he or she has done afterwards; whereas if the Ego wins, then one will be more likely to do the right thing. Thus, we must think carefully and consider all the consequences before we do anything because only we are responsible for our own
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.
“The preference upon the part of the refugee for plural leadership and decision” and “the resentment which succeeds the intrusion of strangers in relief leadership.” showed that people preferred to care for each other on their own instead then being instructed to do so, when they are left by themselves to do so. There always seems to be a sprinkling of the risk for belittling, or patronizing, for what makes them different. It removes the feeling of being civilized while caring for others that makes us act that way. “EMMA,” Emergency Managers Mutual Aid, born the fact that such services needed to be coordinated. Prince believed that the writings of a self-proclaimed “revolutionist” demonstrates that its the much more main- stream philosophy of a different era.
He also believed that the most important characteristic of our personalities is created by how we treat others. While Chuang Tzu preached that things are categorized as good or evil. Everything is everything, and we make our own opinions on the level of goodness or the amount of evil. Chuang Tzu is also a complete anarchist. He believed that the world “does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed.” He also proclaimed that good order results spontaneously when things are let alone.
Situationism is the belief that there is only “norm” and that is love. Situationists even believe that love trumps law. So, they do not believe in general rules (unless you count love as a rule), but they have their own sense of right and wrong. In Hierarchialism, there are definite rules. It has an established order of what is most important or valuable.
Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
He believes that it is “a will to nothingness, an aversion to life, a rebellion against the most fundamental presuppositions of life.” To explain this we must first define sacrifices in general, which is to give up something so as to feel better when suffering, reaching a moment of inspirational truth. In this idea Nietzsche challenges the true ideals of sacrifice by saying, sacrifice is only truly virtues when you give up something for nothing in return. If we look closely at the consequences of peoples sacrifice we see a trend of return interest, that is people receive a feeling of well-being. Nietzsche explains that sacrifice is only used for personal self-interest; in this point the word sacrifice has disbelief in its self. To escape from this continuing moral dilemma we have two choices: 1, we sacrifice, sacrifice all together or 2, we sacrifice for nothing.
For him knowing and understanding one’s self and one’s duty was very important. He believed that “if we do either more or less than is required of us we can be held accountable for the consequences, but not otherwise - not if we do only what is required, neither more nor less. If all the good that we do is just what is required and no more, the consequences of our actions cannot be adjudged to our credit” (Kant, 59). In this quote from Kant, he basically tells us that if we only do what are duties requires us to do, then that is the only thing that we can be held responsible for. However, the most important duty for Kant was the duty to one’s self.