Chisholm's Human Freedom And The Self

“Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs”(Information Philosopher, 2015). It refers to the claim that, at any moment or place in time, there is only one possible future for the whole universe. However, the concept of determinism often comes into question when looking into whether human beings possess free will. Free Will can be defined as “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion” (Defence of Reason, 2014). The very definition of the terms determinism and free will appear to be conflicting however, many philosophical thinkers

In other words, free will dictates the level of responsibility we claim for our actions. If outside forces were to be in control of the choices we make, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. However, if we have total freedom over the choices we make, then we certainly must claim responsibility over our actions. In Paul Holbach’s essay, “The Illusion of Freewill”, Holbach presents the argument that free will is simply an illusion that the human mind has created for us.

Determinists say “every action is determined by prior events”, and metaphysical libertarian argue that “people are free and morally responsible”; compatibilists join in the debate and interpose, “Free will is not at odds with determinism” (lecture 13). No matter what, I hope people have free will. I still think what I think and act as I think. I still doubt things outside my mind but not my ability to think freely and act freely. As D.H. Law Lawrence puts it, “Men are freest when they are most unconscious of freedom” (p256 text).

Taylor’s philosophy and view on determinism, free will and moral responsibility reflects the libertarian philosophic position. He attaches large importance to free will and free choice of a person. Taylor asserts that “certain events (namely, human choices) are not completely determined by preceding events; rather, they are caused by the agent of the choice (the person doing the choosing)” (Free Will). This view differs from that of Blatchford, Schlick and Hospers who deny free choice concluding that everything is determined in our decisions and actions.

William James thought the real problem was not understanding freedom, but rather knowing what determinism was. Determinism could be looked at as a belief. Indeterminism is not to accept this, but accept the alternatives. The world could be viewed as deterministic or in deterministic. There is no correct view because it brings conclusions only on facts we have.

The crime was committed by a man named Derek Vinyard, a white supremacist. He murdered two black gang members after they attempted to steal his truck. If we look closely at the case of Derek Vinyard, we can see that the crime he committed weren’t just a spur-of-the moment thought of killing someone. The actions were rooted deep into his past, wherein his experiences have shaped him into the person that he was today. Certain aspects of his past have influenced his actions, including his environment, the companions that he keeps, his experiences, and a lot

Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212).

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?   If so, under what circumstances?

Brother Hinton was attacked with nightsticks. His scalp was split open…” (X 238). The police, who had been breaking up a fight between two black people, attacked Hinton merely because he did not run away as ordered. The police’s use of violence suggests that he believed it was acceptable for him to start violence, but not other

In other words, when we say that an act is “free” that the act has the freedom necessary for moral responsibility. It does not mean that there is no cause, or that it was caused by a previous event that is caused by a previous event. It mean that it was caused by a person. This is what Chisholm means by an “agent.”

In addition, it is not like the author is pulling these experiences out of thin air these are his experiences he is speaking of his own feelings. This adds so much more credibility to his message by showing readers a different point of view in situations usually told by the other side. Usually in any acts of “misconduct” between white and black people the side of the white person is mostly focused on and unless there is clear evidence contradicting the crime the black man is accused of there is a strong probability that the black man will go to jail

“I believe the freedom to choose my course in life but I do not believe I am free to choose the consequences of my

In the spring of 1991,” In Los Angeles, California, four Los Angeles police officers that had been caught beating an unarmed African-American motorist in an amateur video an acquitted of any wrongdoing in the arrest.” [“1992 Riot in Los Angeles”] We hear and read about police brutality more than we should. Police brutality is a major problem in our country. Many times it is pushed aside or covered up. Sadly we find that a major reason for all this happens, has to do with racism as well.

In other words, if a person acts only out of duty and not self-interest, their action is morally justifiable regardless of what the consequence may be. As you can see, this belief is different from the utilitarian who mainly focuses on the end result of an act or the consequences of the

Recently, news articles have been released telling stories of a white police officer who threw a disobedient black girl on the ground. Many are making the argument, that because the police officer is white and the girl is black, he only harmed her because of her color. Others saying that if , instead, she was white, then none of this would have happened. Also, along with this story the argument could be made the same with the Scottsboro case. Maybe if then men and the women would have been the same color, then the case wouldn 't have been such a big