On the other hand, Hard Determinism believes that there are no free actions at all, and Compatibilism believes that there is free action when someone does what he wants to do. Libertarianism believes in free actions because we have the ability to control some of these actions.
Free will vs. Determinism The incompatibility thesis states that determinism is incompatible with any significant sense of freewill. Therefore, having free will is a necessary condition for the ascription of moral responsibility. 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.
And yet, the science and reason that brought us this invention are not enough to force humanity to accept it in all facets of life. Something potentially responsible for this phenomenon is the Backfire Effect. David McRaney describes the Backfire Effect with great accuracy in his article “The Backfire Effect”: “coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead” (1). This unbreakable resolve for maintaining beliefs in contradiction to logic prevents us from seeing truth effectively.
Stop Political passivity, but know what you stand for when you actively oppose the authority. THOREAU True prestige is in independent thought as we live in a constantly imperfect world Not to say “down with conformity” for uniquenesses sake, as this would simply be an emerging perspective of circular logic, both conformity and individuality are neither inherently good or bad, but thinking critically on a deeper level, past the surface is an essential part of developing as an individual. Why do we have an attachment to free will and individuality? -useful in
He thinks that the concept of liberty is, in fact, not compatible with that of peace: peace corresponds to a perpetual research of predominance and so it has to be taken away. In conclusion, having considered both Machiavelli and Hobbes’ analysis and thoughts about the concept of liberty, they can be said to be one the opposite of the other. However, it would be interesting to see what both Machiavelli and Hobbes would argue about the limits that this individual liberty has. As John Stuart Mill states, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost.” A man could enjoy his liberty of action and expression following his own instincts and appetites as long as it does not affect negatively the liberty of others.
As well as possibly suggesting that something that is not valid should not dictate ones actions over the values of historical law. Two key phrases of this quote is “Moral law is an invention of mankind… in favor of the weak” and “A moral view can never be proven right or wrong”. The term invention refers to a product produced stemmed from imagination. The Judge stating that the idea of morality comes from an individual’s imagination shows how it was a fabricated/thought of decision from civilization to keep down the strongest of men. In preference to cater only the weak as mentioned.
To quote Berlin, “Coercion frustrates human desires, but it can be applied to prevent greater evils. Non-interference, on the other hand, is the opposite of coercion, is good, but not the only good.” This is supposedly the ‘negative’ conception of liberty in its classical form. Secondly, Berlin believes that this negative notion is comparatively new. Thirdly, liberty, in this sense, is principally concerned with ‘the area of control, not with its source’. He believes that negative freedom is not logically related to democracy or self-government.
I disagree, though I am not saying that such a belief is inherently wrong. Many would argue that just like we have control of our limbs, thoughts, actions etc we have free will. To act freely is to act under one’s own guidance or reason. We may be influenced, be it by several outside factors such as friends or family, but this does not mean we do not have free will. And what about intuition?
With that we do not always have free will. This would also prove that determinism and free will are compatible because determinism says that all events are ultimately determined by outside causes showing that humans have no free will. I believe that we can make our own decisions but ultimately, all our decisions are already laid out and chosen for us. We are morally responsible for our decisions, but free will is not the same. Most of our choices are caused but outside events, even if we don’t think they are.
At first glance this theory seems to be a wonderful idea, however throughout this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is not a successful account of morality. I will explain the flaws with utilitarianism, such as not caring about actions, and not having bias to other individuals. Utilitarianism can be broken down into three different principles. The first principle explains that the motivation to get to the final result does not matter as long as one gets the conclusion that makes society the happiest. For instance, if person A persistently asks another individual (person B) to hang out for a while but person B keeps saying no.