Libertarianism is the position I wish to defend, and thus will argue that, indeed, we do have free will. Libertarians believe that free will exists. Libertarians think the will is free when a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior
Open Roads Peter van Inwagen thinks a compatibilists position is confusing, considering that it should be reason and logic how “choices” of an individual will determine free will and how it is that they define free will and a physically possible choice may determine an outcome. It is not clear when free will and determinism are compatible. For this, Inwagen demonstrates two views to understand and clear the confusion about compatibilist position. He says the easiest view to understand is the first one that gives a clear idea about futures that do not have a physically possible connection with the present are “open” to and individual. Second view is more difficult because compatibilist talk about reasonable futures.
Soft determinism argues that while determinism is broadly true, we still have free will nonetheless. This theory is also referred to as compatiblism because it presents the idea that the existence of both determinism and free will are compatible, and that this is not at all logically inconsistent. Compatibilists define free will as freedom to act according to one's determined motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions. This can be supported in today’s society as Courts of Law make judgments about whether individuals are acting under their own free will under certain
A determination is not made on individuals. A determination is made on groups of people. Comparing the current situation to other similar situations will be reviewed to help make a decision. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Using the act utilitarianism theory a person’s decision is based on what is the most beneficial for the majority regardless of personal feelings.
Simpler questions would be “Is Dr. Smith’s intentional practise of omitting important information relevant to his client’s treatment ethical?” or “Is Dr. Smith’s failure to report his client’s actions to the authorities morally justifiable?” Both would be good questions, but I believe the question the study guide asks us to consider embrace both of these questions. The possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”. I will be using rule-based utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to analyse this case study. There is not enough information to consider act-based utilitarianism: Act-based utilitarianism essentially says that one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good (“happiness”) over bad for everyone affected by the act. Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42).
Your responses should include examples from the reading assignments. Responses that fall short of the assigned minimum page length will not earn any points. 1. You are facing a moral quandary, and you want advice. You must choose either of two advisors, but not both.
A scientific determinist will say that any choice we make is merely an illusion of free will. We see the choices we make as free will because of the inherent complexities involved with the mind. Although we do not fully grasp the complexities of the human brain, scientific determinism states that, knowing everything there is to know about the rules of the universe we would be able to determine what a person was going to do. On the other hand, free-willists believe that humans do in fact have free will. There is some amount of causal powers attributed to the brain that cannot be simply by analyzing the electromagnetic-fields and quarks in the brain.
Some people truly believe that this is the case; that free will is an illusion. However, 17th-century philosopher René Descartes contradicted this brilliantly, saying, “If anyone is skeptical of existence that is in and of itself proof that he does exist.” What he meant was that this theoretical person has the ability to formulate opinions and think for himself; therefore he exists
In real life I believe that the future is not set and only God knows what is going to happen. One could argue that if someone knows what is going to happen then it is inevitable. I think that the future is still not set because God only sees the outcome of free choices that people will make. The future is actually not set in The Odyssey because Odysseus chooses not to change his future when it is told to him, thus making it come true. I think that the only reason that the prophet Tireseas was able to tell Odysseus his future is because Odysseus sealed it by making a decision not to change it.
His friend Crito comes to his rescue except, Socrates declines this rescue as he explains that doing so would be a breaching of the laws. His reasoning behind is, that by escaping he is favoring those who have condemned him and failing that which is fair and just, the laws; even when these have wrongly condemned him. So he questions whether he ought to break the laws or not. (Plato 49-51) Whether he was persuasive in terms of his escape that is very clear as he does feel he should side with the law, the reader could perceive it differently. While there is a clear understanding of what is right and wrong, looking at both points of view it seems that the overall point is lost to Socrates.