Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sanity and the metaphysics of responsibility susan wolf
Moral theories compared
Moral theories compared
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sanity and the metaphysics of responsibility susan wolf
Moral theories compared
Moral theories compared
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The case of Robert Alton Harris, a convicted murderer who was executed in 1992 for his crimes, raises profound questions about free will and moral responsibility. In this essay, I will argue that Harris did not exercise free agency when committing the crimes, that he could not have done otherwise, and that he is morally responsible for his actions despite his background. Moreover, I will show how this scenario can be used to shed light on the possibility of free will and moral responsibility in a deterministic universe. First, let us consider the facts of the case.
A conscience is known as an inner feeling or voice that acts as a guideline for the morality of one’s behaviour. In Lorna Dueck’s “Why conscience (or lack of it) is in the news”, she portrays the purpose of a conscience in an individual’s decisions and actions. Dueck questions individual’s conduct then provides solutions to achieve a better world. She includes other sources to strengthen her argument on how one’s conscience reflects their behaviour. As well, Dueck uses a logical perspective to convince the audience the importance of a morally shaped conscience.
His position in regards to his argument is directly outlined at the beginning of the text to insure that readers are aware of the author’s intensions. He uses examples of situations in which the current principle of alternative possibilities is faulted and concisely pulls apart each situation to determine exactly what constitutes the excision of morally responsibility. The article clearly outlines Frankfurt’s arguments, however it becomes evident in particular sections that Frankfurt’s arguments become slightly repetitive as he tries to, perhaps over simplify his arguments to ensure his reader understand his position. As someone who has never been exposed to the principle of alternative possibilities and its implications of moral responsibility for ones actions I found Frankfurt’s arguments were well illustrated and provided strong persuasion with appeal to reason. Frankfurt not only provides sound reasoning behind his arguments about how the principle of possible alternatives is false, however, he does suggest possible ways to revise the principle so that it is more accurate.
Lucy Bichakhchyan Introduction to Philosophy Second Short Written Assignment GALEN STRAWSON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY Galen Strawson is a British philosopher, who is famous for his philosophical works on free will, panpsychism, causality, determinism etc. This paper is about his article “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility”. The title of the article already gives away the stand that Strawson has considering Moral Responsibility..
We may not have complete control over our lives, but let us not fail to pay attention to our intuitions and our experiences of it. Many aspects go into deciding whether one is morally good or bad and ultimately can be traced back to
Questions of morality are abstract and extremely touchy. They are subject to enduring debates regarding its origins, nature, and limits, with no possibility of a consensus. Although the theories on morality often pursue diverse angles, among the most interesting ones that have come up in recent times revolve around the question whether human beings are born with an innate moral sense. Some scholars hold the view that humans are born with an inherent sense of morality while others believe the opposite that humans are not born with an innate moral sense holds true. By using Steven Pinker’s
Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused. In order to evaluate Aristotle’s ethical argument, it is first necessary to explain his definitions of character acquisition, volition, and responsibility. Aristotle defines character acquisition very succinctly:
A pure example of the role of authority over decision making is shown in the Stanford Prison Experiment, as discussed in the book. Zimbardo once again offers an in depth look at his experiment and how it completely changed seemingly normal people into horrible monsters. In the Stanford Prison
Introduction Many psychologists and researchers have for many years tried to explain what makes normal human beings become evil and become perpetrators of evil. The study of a normal human being becoming a perpetrator of evil has almost become it’s own branch of psychology. There are many examples of evil actions in this world, which has led to a lot of research of the human mind; where evil is born. Hitler, Anders Breivik, and Jim Jones are just a few examples of the many evil human minds we have seen in this world. All people, who were thought to hold the same mindset as everyone else.
The debate regarding whether or not humans are ultimately responsible for their actions and decisions has grown rapidly in the twenty-first century, as this debate was mainly a theological and philosophical debate, rather than a scientific one, and mainly a debate restricted to experts and scholars. The two opposing theories which create such a debate are Libertarianism and Determinism. Libertarianism proposes the argument that free choice is true, and since it is true, complete causal determinism must be false and does not exist. This view accepts the psychological image and rejects the mechanistic image of one’s actions and decisions. The psychological image, also known as the ‘common sense view’ looks at the mind, feelings, and emotions,
How do I Make Moral choices, in a World of Moral Ambiguity? A desire for meaning would also include obtaining some kind of “identity,” or individualism. Yet, society or someone will try to force their “ideal” moral system onto everyone else. “Thinking may be “good for nothing” in the world, but in the mind it is good for guidance—not legislation, but guidance” (Bruehl 193).
Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. First, I begin with Swinburne’s views on the kinds of evils. According to him, there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to all evil caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do and also the evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure
Determinism, free will and moral responsibility (1681 words) Table of contents: Introduction. Blatchford’s view on determinism, free will, and moral responsibility. Schlick’s determinism, freedom and responsibility. Hospers’s position.
Throughout history many great philosophers have attempted to unravel the origins of virtues by developing moral theories of their own. This document is designed to provide the reader with an overview of some of the more popular theories concerning morals. Three of the most popular moral theories are… Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism. Though Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism differ in many ways, they also share similar fundamentals. Utilitarianism is a highly acclaimed theory that is morally based on consequentialism.
The point is that moral approvals and disapprovals done by our moral sense are specific in nature and only operate when there is an action that can be appropriately judged of by our moral sense. Reasoning and information can change the evaluation of the moral sense, but no amount of reasoning can or does precede the moral sense in regard to its approval of what is for the public good. The moral sense approves of the good for others. This concern for others by the moral sense is what is natural to humankind, Hutcheson contended. Reason gives content to the moral sense, informing it of what is good for others and the public good