Free Will Argument

If an agent cannot proceed differently in an event then the agent cannot be held morally responsible for the event. If we accept indeterminism then we believe that for an event to happen there is no control over it. The agent cannot cause the event but rather the possibility is that event will happen on chance. An agent cannot be held morally responsible for an event which just happened randomly. Chisholm thinks that, for an agent to be held responsible for an event, the event must not be caused by mere chance & it must not be caused by another event but rather the agent must cause the event. In my essay I will explain, why I agree with Chisholm for thinking that for an agent to be morally responsible for an event, the agent must cause the event so that he is held responsible for hic action when he could have chosen to act differently. I will illustrate why determinism fails in holding an agent responsible, opening up way for the Chisholm’s incompatibalist

Determinism is a theory that all things in the world is governed by laws. This theory is based upon the materialist view of the body and mind. Materialists think that all things that exist in this world matter. We, humans, have mind or souls and desired interests are based upon actions. This principal argues that we have no moral responsibilities and choices. Actions are made by causes. We cannot predict everything in the future and with that said, human actions are made by laws.

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). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible.

Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will

Now with the possibility of backwards causation there arises some paradoxes within the view. Namely, there are three different types of paradoxes to talk about, the Bootstrap Paradox, the Consistency Paradox, and Newcomb’s Paradox. The one that we will focus on, and I believe holds that most weight against backwards causation is Newcomb’s Paradox. The paradox in short is that a person is given a choice between two boxes, by a fortune teller who can fully predict the choice of the person. The boxes contain one thousand dollars in a clear box, box A, and an opaque box, box B, that either contains one million dollars or no money at all. The fortune teller gives the person an option, take only box B and get one million dollars, or take

People do not possess free will but are governed by fate because we think we have a choice to change our decisions but what if

When describing determinism vs. free will, Ayer begins by considering different aspects of freewill that are incompatible with determinism. The first concept that Ayer discusses is the assertion that a person is free just in the case that their action is not caused. He then rejects this idea using a

In this philosophical essay, I will be providing a brief introduction of David Hume’s skeptical argument against induction. Also, in order for Hume’s skeptical argument to make sense, I will also be referencing René Descartes’ theory of foundationalism and Sober’s categorization of beliefs into three distinct levels. Furthermore, I claim that both Hume and Descartes’ perspective of how rational justification is defined will always lead to skepticism being true. In addition, I will argue that there exists a valid, alternate perspective which will falsify David Hume’s skeptical argument and allow induction as a valid method of reasoning.

In Christian tradition, the existence of God is central to the religion and the practices and beliefs associated with it. In this tradition, God can be conceived of as an all powerful, immortal and transcendent being who governs and creates the world as it is known. During the Medieval Era Christianity dominated Europe, leading to an extensive amount of philosophical and scholarly works related to God and how to properly conceive of him. As a result, many philosophical topics and theories were brought under examination in an attempt to combine them with Christian ideologies and conceptions of God and the world. One of the many topics brought under consideration was free will. Free will is an important components of the human experience and

The Three Fates are a group of women in Greek mythology that governs every mortal being from the time of their birth to their death. In Greek mythology they are called Moirai and could have been depicted as just one entity in certain periods of time, such as stories by Homer. In the Theogony they are three separate entities that worked in unison. Clotho, the spinner, spun out the threads of life of every being onto her spindle. Lachesis, the allotter, measured out each thread of life with her measuring rod. Atropos, the inexorable, is the one who cut each thread of life. She uses her shears to cut the threads and in doing she also determines how and when the being dies. In history Moirai were described as vile, ugly, and stern women that appeared 3 days after a boy has been born and when they arrive they are often depicted over the child spinning and planning the child’s life. Why the Moirai are depicted to use tools for spinning is because in ancient history, spinning or cloth weaving has been a womanly task. No sources has stated

Moritz Schlick is a representative of logical positivism doctrine. His definition of free will, determinism and moral responsibility derives from the definition of punishment. He supposes that “Punishment is an educative measure, and as such is a means to the formation of motives, which are in part to prevent the wrongdoer from repeating the act (reformation) and in part to prevent others from committing a similar act (intimidation). Analogously, in the case of reward we are concerned with an incentive." (Schlick, p. 152). So, Schlick’s view of free will and responsibility is connected with punishment. He supposes that a person in responsible if the punishment for his action is able to change his behavior in the future. So, his determinism differs a little from that of Blatchford. In his point of view, "we are trying to discover who is ultimately responsible" (D'Angelo, p. 37). So, he thinks that moral responsibility is not derived from heredity and environment. But what is the source of free will and moral responsibility? Schlick doesn’t give any unequivocal answer to this question. I think that moral responsibility depends on the scale of free will of a person and his attitude to the actions of other persons. In other words, our behaviour is the result of both our heredity and nature, and some outside factors which depend on our relation to other persons’

The words on this page -- are they written as a predetermined set of circumstances or by an agent free of any influence? Are human beings essentially cogs on a colossal, universe scale robot, or are they sentient beings who are uninfluenced by the order of the universe? Ultimately, it

Determinism is the idea that every event including human decisions and actions are completely predetermined by previous causes. Once the causes occur, the effects must follow. These effects include moral choices.

Humans have free will, but God knows their fate. In Book V of the City of God, Saint Augustine discusses the matter of fate and free will pertaining to having a relationship with God. Within that section of the text he makes many statements about how humans have the freedom to make their own choices, but God ultimately knows the outcome. Logically, this make sense. If God created everything, then this would mean He has created everything in the past, present and future. As a result, he is aware of the choices and events that will be made by humanity. But how does Saint Augustine know that humans have free will? Evidence of this comes both from the text and The Holy Bible, specifically the book of John and 1 Corinthians. However, it is reasonable

In the film, “Abre los Ojos (1997),” César often claims that there is “no explanation” (Amenábar) for what has happened to him. Even though he may not believe it, César’s life is psychologically determined. He is extremely confident because he grew up wealthy and handsome, and always had everything handed to him. When César’s entire life flips after a car accident, he does not know how to deal with it because he is not used to losing to his best friend, Pelayo, and feeling unwanted. César is often questioned what happiness is to him. But after he loses his good looks, it is evident that César believes that happiness is being rich and admired by everyone. After reviewing the types of determinism that argue free will, one will be able to understand why César’s life is determined psychologically and not by any other form of determinism or free will.