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. But real free will, according to Taylor, appears in case of strong evaluations which determine important actions and decisions.
In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us. He then goes on to expand on the consequences of the Basic Argument.
Mill’s theory is broken down into two aspects; act utilitarian’s that believe that each action should have its own review to see if it's moral or not based on the individual situation. While rule utilitarian’s believe that certain rules that dictate what's moral or immoral are universal and applies to everyone with no exceptions. In addition, the idea that act everyone can do it moral is a huge part of rule utilitarian’s. Therefore, Mill will argue that my act of lying was morally right if he views my case as an act utilitarian. The action of lying to protect my cousin may have made the outcome of the situation better.
The myth of the given: This is an influential criticism made by Wilfrid Sellars. It is applicable to all types of foundationalism since the idea of the basic belief depends on the idea of the given. The argument runs in this way: the idea of the given in traditional epistemology contains irreconcilable tensions. Foundationalists want to make sure that basic beliefs do not involve any other beliefs. That is why they want the given to be untainted by the application of concepts.
Deontology is the belief that "the moral worth of an action does NOT lie in the consequences of an action," while Utilitarianism is the belief that "moral worth of an action lies in the consequences of that action" (Garcia, Kant Slide 37). Deontology also believes that good will is the only intrinsic good, in contrast Utilitarianism believes happiness and well-being are the only intrinsic good. Both systems have completely different beliefs, which will be exposed in the following comparisons of the situation. First, I will explain the Deontology view point of the scenario. In accordance with Kant's method of thinking you have to start by creating a maxim.
Nozick’s theory cannot be applied without starting from a just beginning; a different theory of justice might have to be created that is not sensitive to past injustices that we cannot correct. Thus the historical nature of Nozick’s theory could be described as a weakness in his theory. Nozick’s theory embraces an idea that individuals should lead their lives as autonomously as possible. It gives a great amount of liberty to an individual, and it acknowledges a past of injustices. However, objections are that it might not be as good in practice as in theory as Nozick fails to clearly tell us how it should work and it prefers protecting interference of rights and not on the possible consequences of the
The third formulation is “Act as if your maxim would harmonize with a kingdom of ends.” This means that whatever goals we have for our lives, they must not jeopardize other people 's goals. Kant argues that a person is good or bad depending on the reasoning of their actions and not on the goodness of the consequences of those actions. He also argues that one can be a good person only if one is motivated by morality. I believe that categorical imperative is a good heuristic upon which to make decisions on because it is Kant 's golden rule, act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people. Act according to the saying that you would wish all other rational people to follow as if it were a universal
And how does free will influence evil? This essay will explain Mackie’s argument against the theist’s three premises. It will also cover Plantinga’s argument of free will and transworld depravity. Lastly, it will discuss Walsch’s free will theodicy and how it reflects on evil. The argument states the existence of evil is impossible under the attributes of God.
However, Naturalists, for example would object to this argument. Naturalists believe that there is no reason that an object exists and are unable to provide explanations in support of why these objects are in existence. However, the cause of the universe is necessary because the answer behind it all is God’s
Because Pascal initially concludes God to be "infinitely incomprehensible"(Pascal's 4), putting us in a "position of metaphysical ignorance." (Blackburn's 20) we are unable to understand anything of God, yet Pascal assumes that we can create assumptions about rewards and punishments associated with such a being. Pascal also says that the belief in God can only have two answers. Blackburn takes this as a case of false options saying that the belief in God has more than two answers. As humans, are unable to understand an incomprehensible and powerful being, especially because "He has no affinity to us"(Pascal's 4), so Blackburn questions the premise of Pascal's argument, where it seems as if his set up assumes something about God.