Homework answers / question archive / FINAL Write a "composite" essay which -- if printed -- would be about 12 double-spaced pages in length (approximately 3,600 words in length)

FINAL Write a "composite" essay which -- if printed -- would be about 12 double-spaced pages in length (approximately 3,600 words in length)

Writing

Share With

FINAL Write a "composite" essay which -- if printed -- would be about 12 double-spaced pages in length (approximately 3,600 words in length). Your task with this composite essay is to provide your own account of human freedom and responsibility, and to show how your own account relates to the accounts put forward by the various philosophers we have discussed over the course of this semester. In presenting and arguing for your own account: a) you should demonstrate your familiarity with the relevant other accounts that have been developed by others (e.g., by the thinkers whose work we have read and/or discussed this semester); (b) you should demonstrate how your own account differs from these other accounts (perhaps you might do this by showing how other accounts have weaknesses which your account does not have, or which your account overcomes); (c) you should demonstrate how your own account is similar to these other accounts (perhaps you might do this by showing how other accounts have strengths which are included in or incorporated into your own account). Your composite essay can and should include previously written and/or revised material that you already submitted as part of your work on essays 1-7, and essays A-D. It will be up to you to determine how much of that previously written/revised material gets used in your "composite" essay; but your "composite" essay should be more than just the result of cutting-and-pasting your earlier work into a single document. The "composite" essay should put forward a coherent, continuous, unified argument which takes the reader through an examination of other thinkers on "freedom and responsibility," and brings the reader to an understanding of your own account of "freedom and responsibility." In other words, your "composite" essay should have the "feel" and "flow" of a unified argument, and so you will need to think carefully about how you organize your essay as a whole, and how you provide transitions between the different parts of your essay. The reader of your essay should be able to understand what you find promising and/or problematic in the work of other thinkers; the reader should also be able to understand how your own account aims to avoid the weaknesses of other accounts and/or seeks to improve upon the strengths of other accounts. The reader of your essay should also be able to discern whether you yourself are a determinist, an incompatibilist, etc. There is no specific rule governing exactly how many other different thinkers you must discuss in your composite essay; however, a composite essay which discusses too few other thinkers (say, only 2 of the 13 thinkers whose work we read) or too many other thinkers (say, all 13 of the 13) is not likely to be a very strong essay. There is no specific rule governing exactly how much space you must dedicate to (a) discussing the strengths or weaknesses of the accounts of others, and how much space you must dedicate to (b) developing and discussing your own account; however, a composite essay which dedicates 80% of its space to (a), and only 20% of its space to (b), or vice versa, is not likely to be a very strong essay. Previous essays: ESSAY 1 Aristotle, Ethics, selections from Book I, ch. 1, 4-7; and Book III, ch. 1-4 (pp. 1-14) http://www.lawandphilosophy.org/aristotle.pdf The intentions behind most actions are assumedly to attain some good. As such, the actions must never be seen to surpass the good, which is the end. The pertinent question, however, is what this end means. Aristotle, in this topic, examines different angles, accepting that there is no universally accepted definition for this good. Good can come as different things for different areas. Although Aristotle counted with refined men who posited that the ultimate good is happiness, he examined this with the idea of absolute end as the ultimate good. Absolute in the sense that it is not based on any premises, deductions, or etc. The author assumed that because happiness is not a means to any end but an end in itself, it can pass for the absolute good. However, it is likely that happiness can be pursued as a means, thereby leaving us open to explore for that ultimate good. For me, happiness to one may be the death of another. If the search for happiness becomes the ultimate pursuit, it means many will suffer and die because only the death and suffering of some people makes some people happy. Given this, I do not see happiness as an absolute good, but as a natural phenomenon which may appear good to some, but dangerous for others, since the happiness of some is the death of others. If this intrinsic good persecuted in man's efforts is examined more closely, it will be found that this good is subjective and certainly not universal. Aristotle, however, was trying to find a meeting point in the search for good, which is certainly impossible. It is impossible to find a compromise because this good means different things to different people, and the meaning to one could mean something different to another. ESSAY 2 Immanuel Kant, selections from Critique of Pure Reason, “Third Antinomy” (pp. 1-13) http://www.lawandphilosophy.org/kantantinomy.pdf According to the reading, Kant argues in support of causality of freedom. He therefore rules out the law of nature as the only explanation to the world’s happenings. A deeper look into the law of nature reveals that it cannot by itself give concrete explanations about the origin of things. This is because everything has a unique beginning that cannot be ignored. For instance, the law of nature may purport that a particular type of vegetation grows in an area because similar vegetation have historically grown there. While this may be somewhat true, the theory fails to outline the underlying conditions that might have resulted to the initial growth. Unlike causality according to the law of nature, causality of freedom offers an explanation to the beginning of events rather than assuming that events follow an ambiguous pattern. Therefore, every phenomena is initiated by a spontaneous event. It is only after this event that the subsequent events can be termed as happening according to the law of nature. Although this argument is substantive, it may lead to some inaccurate conclusions. For instance, if determining the exact cause of an event gets challenging, the event may be linked to an inaccurate cause, which may be misleading. By accepting Kant’s arguments, it is assumed that everything has a definite cause. This may not be true because by their nature, some things do not have a clear origin. For instance, scientists have only been able to make postulations about the causes of some events because establishing their real cause is empirically impossible. Therefore Kant’s philosophy is not entirely applicable and some things may only be explained by the law of nature. ESSAY 3 Philippa Foot, “Free Will as Involving Determinism,” Philosophical Review, vol. 66, no. 4 (October 1957), pp. 439-450 http://www.lawandphilosophy.org/footdeterminism.pdf Philippa Foot’s article, Free Will Involving Determinism, presents a critical approach towards the idea that free will cannot do without determinism. According to Foot, a man with free will is one who acted without constraint and he could choose to act otherwise if he wanted to. After examining the works of David Hume, she argues that describing our actions to be determined by motives is the same as physical determinism. Foot supports her argument with Bertrand Russell’s idea of causal determinism, which states that every event that takes place in the universe can be determined theoretically. Foot does not seem to agree with the argument that every event in the universe can be causally determined or that everything in the universe happens by chance. According to her, using the term ‘determined’ does not refer to universal determinism. If the actions of a man are described as being determined by his desires, it means that this man is doing what he is doing something that he wants to do. Therefore, this statement does not imply the textbook definition of determinism. On the other hand, when one performs a certain action by chance, it does not mean that this action was physically undetermined nor can the individual deny responsibility for such actions. However, according to the arguments of Ayer, it is not clear whether actions that happen by chance or accidentally take place with the absence of causes. Ayer uses the terms ‘chance’ and ‘accident’ to indicate the lack of causes, which are used to deny responsibility to one’s actions. Foot does not agree with the ideology of indeterminism and chance providing ‘free’ alternative likelihoods of actions that are deliberated upon and used as motivations behind our reasoning and how we choose to act. ESSAY 4 Harry Frankfurt, “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” Journal of Philosophy, vol. 66, no. 23 (December 1969), pp. 829-839 http://www.lawandphilosophy.org/frankfurtalternate.pdf In his article, Harry G. Frankfurt critiques the plausibility of 'the principle of alternative possibilities. The principle claims that an individual is morally responsible for any actions he/she has done only if the individual could have done otherwise. According to Frankfurt the exact meaning of this principle is subject to controversy, especially when considering whether any individual who accepts it commits to accepting the incompatibility between determinism and moral responsibility. Frankfurt believes that the principle is not credible as an individual may be morally responsible for what he/she has done, even if he/she was unable to engage in an alternative action. Similarly, if an individual is coerced into engaging in a particular action, it is generally accepted that the individual should not be considered morally responsible for that particular action. Frankfurt claims that coercion deprives one of moral responsibility and freedom as he/she is unable to do otherwise. However, the principle of alternative possibilities appears to derive some credibility by associating with the plausible argument that coercion deprives one of moral responsibility. Nonetheless, it should not do so as being unable to do an alternative action does not necessarily entail a lack of moral responsibility. For instance, if an individual is threatened with an unacceptable penalty and chooses to do what is required, we may deem it reasonable to conclude that the person was coerced to engage in the act. But Frankfurt believes that the roles we think are played by the threat as well as the person’s decision may help determine if should be held morally responsible. For instance, we can consider the coercive effect of the threat in question and if it, indeed, influenced the individual’s decision to do something. ESSAY 5 Harry Frankfurt, “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person,” Journal of Philosophy, vol. 68, no. 1 (January 1971), pp. 5-20 http://www.lawandphilosophy.org/frankfurtperson.pdf Frankfurt refers to a person as a membership for individuals on their characteristics, which is based on their structure of free will. However, he carefully illustrates that being a person does not distinguish one person from another species but through their attributes that easily make up the humane ways to ensure they are separated from the other species. Also, Frankfurt's interpretation of will is the capability of a person to get what they want and claim it for themselves. Again, the author details how desire entails a form of mysterious wants a person undergoes, which is not well explained and rationalized than will, which is rationalized and entails a person's capability to archive their wants regardless of the action. Moreover, Frankfurt states that people have free will because they might possess intuition like human beings, but nonpersons do not have free will because they lack a second order, which violates any sense of free will to be achieved in the long term. Furthermore, he explains that first order is a form of desire on anything except for another desire. Alternatively, second order is a desire to accomplish another desire which details Frankfurt's analysis on wanton who cannot be called a person because they cannot form any violations in the second-order but still acquire second-order desires. Conversely, Frankfurt states how freedom of action is not sufficient to gain free will because it does not conform to the second-order volitions. Lastly, the author distinguishes an unwilling addict as a person whose first order will is not what they desire; wanton addict lacks free will because they do not have desires and willing addict will not have free will even though they got their want which does not conform to the second-order volitions. ESSAY 6 Thomas Nagel, “Moral Luck,” ch.11 of Free Will: Oxford Readings in Philosophy, edited by Gary Watson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 174-186 http://www.lawandphilosophy.org/nagelmoralluck.pdf Moral luck entails that an individual is praised or blamed for an action or consequence which they do not fully understand or had any control over the output which could be either good or bad in regards to the action committed by the individual. Moreover, Nagel illustrates the major problem affecting all the four types of luck entails that individuals assume their morally assessable when they can control the factors that influence their decisions which brings up the issue of control principle by the individual. Furthermore, Nagel illustrates that the problem of moral luck is unsolvable because individuals cannot be held plausible as they cannot be assessed morally if they do not fully accept the issues as they were not responsible in controlling the factors that resulted to the moral judgment presented in their lives. Conversely, Nagel is disagreeing with Kent on some aspects and agreeing with other areas which make a sensible rationale to the moral luck research. For instance, how important it is for the individuals to act rationally even when not having control over the current situation because their action will determine whether they get blamed or praised in the long run due to their actions. Lastly, Nagel says the paradoxes or problems arises due to someone own ideas simply means that the individuals who cannot assess their morals will not be able to understand any form of issue they have committed. The individuals adopt a mindset where they have not done anything wrong hence their moral judgment is not plausible to be analyzed by researchers. ESSAY 7 Daniel Dennett, “Sphexishness” (pp. 10-11) and “Acting Under the Idea of Freedom” (ch. 5) from Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Having (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1984), pp. 101-130 http://www.lawandphilosophy.org/dennettelbowroom.pdf Dennett assumes determinism as all physical events that are determined or caused by prior events. According to the author, if we say that determinism is true, then our decisions and deeds are the unavoidable outcomes of the sum of physical forces acting at the moment, which is the outcome of forces acting in a previous instance, and so on. Therefore, if determinism is true, any belief we have of there being more than one possible future is false as only the actual is possible, implying that there is one sole possible future. However, determinism can be deemed incompatible with deliberation as deliberation is based on the assumption that there are more than one possibilities to choose from. Dennett claims that, even if deliberation may contribute to a causal chain, it will not be considered ‘real’ deliberation. This is considering the outcome would be determined as its inauguration. He applies this argument to an example in which two branches are “open to the agent.” In real deliberation, the agent has a real opportunity, but if the outcome of the deliberation was determined, then there would only be an apparent opportunity, not a real opportunity. Dennett goes ahead to define fatalism as the superstitious and mystical belief that at certain points in our lives, we will likely find ourselves in certain circumstances despite the intervening whims of our individual trajectories. Determinism is often confused with fatalism in the claim that the casual impotence of deliberation is implied by determinism. Nonetheless, determinism does not imply fatalism. However, there are genuine instances of local fatalism in the world. For instance, if a person throws himself off the Golden Gate Bridge and starts question his decision as he plummets, deliberation is already impotent for this person. This is considering his future destination can be plotted without factoring in his intervening efforts. ESSAY A Philippa Foot’s article, Free Will Involving Determinism, presents a critical approach towards the idea that free will cannot do without determinism. In her article, Foot critiques the arguments of several philosophers that claim determinism plays a critical role in influencing free will, and that an individual should not be considered responsible for engaging in ‘chance’ actions without a particular reason. Over time, the impression that free will is reconcilable with the strictest determinism has become widely accepted. According to Foot, acting freely implies that either an individual is not constrained in any way, or there was an alternative action that he/she may have opted for instead. Foot turns her focus to a theory that appears incidentally in Hume’s Treatise and Hobart’s full article that states determinism is opposed to free will. She argues that describing our actions to be determined by motives is the same as physical determinism. Foot also considers Bertrand Russell’s idea of causal determinism, which states that every event that takes place in the universe can be determined theoretically. According to Russell, at the same or different times, there are invariable relations between different events that every subsequent and previous event act as a function of a particular event at a given time. Foot does not directly argue for or against causal determinism, but believes that there is a need to think differently about what counts as a cause of an action. She further states that the use of the term ‘determined’ does not necessarily refer to universal determinism. If the actions of a man are described as being determined by his desires, it means that this man is doing something that he wants to do. On the other hand, when one performs a certain action by chance, it does not mean that this action was physically undetermined nor can the individual deny responsibility for such actions. Ayer argues that the lack of causal laws that govern action does not provide the moralist what he wants. However, according to the arguments of Ayer, it is not clear whether actions happen by chance or accidentally with the absence of causes, as there may be causes without necessarily concluding if they are determining causes or efficient causes. Ayer uses the terms ‘chance’ and ‘accident’ to indicate the lack of causes, which are used to deny responsibility to one’s actions. Foot also considers Hobart’s argument that suggests that an action that is not determined does not qualify to be considered an action in the first place. Hobart uses an example of a man whose legs spring up suddenly and move him to a location that he did not intend to go, and likens this to an action that is not determined. Furthermore, Foot is skeptical of the simple argument that every action is done either by chance or because a casual decision was made. She believes the logical dilemma between determinism and indeterminism is largely a result of such arguments that discredit free will. It would be odd to believe free will relies on the absence of a motive to act. However, we do not expect that every action done by a rational individual is influenced by a motive as it is quite normal for people to act without a particular motive in mind. ESSAY B According to Kant’s thesis, causality follows the laws of nature is not the only causality that functions to create the world’s phenomena. This is considering that the causality of freedom is needed for accounting of such phenomena. Kant considers a scenario in which the only causality is the causality that follows the laws of nature, whereby prior conditions are presupposed by occurrences with utmost certainty. The outcome or consequence of this previous event would not occur initially as it must itself be something that has already occurred. Hence the causality of a cause, in which an event occurs, is itself a thing that has already occurred. This implies there is adherence to the law of nature considering there is a prior condition, as well as its causality, and another predecessor to the former, and so on. Therefore, every event occurs solely as per the law of nature, as there is no first beginning of such occurrences, just a comparative or subaltern beginning. Kant finds the argument, that every causality is likely only following the laws of nature, self-contradictory in a general and unlimited manner. In his antithesis, Kant claims that freedom does not exist and that all things happen following the laws of nature. He claims that transcendental freedom opposes the natural law of cause and effect. According to Kant, transcendental freedom is just a fiction of thought as such as conjunction threatens the likelihood of unity in experience. Therefore, we should search for order and connection in cosmical events in nature. Kant defines freedom as being independent of the laws of nature and considers it as a rescue from restraint. However, Kant also finds freedom as a renunciation of the guidance of rule and law. It is impossible to allege that laws of freedom can be included into the causality of the course of nature, as freedom would no longer be freedom if it were predetermined in accordance to laws. Kant’s argument can be likened to Aristotle’s as they both dwell on causality. According to Kant, all things that occur presuppose a previous condition that conforms to a rule in utmost certainty. However, for the outcome to originate, the previous condition must happen first, as if the previous condition does not happen, its effect or consequence will fail to exist for the first time. This implies that there must exist a cause that is absolutely spontaneous to create a series of consequences following natural law. Aristotle’s argument offers support to Kant’s view on causality. According to Aristotle, every pursuit and action, every inquiry, and every art aims at some ends. Aristotle further claims that a certain difference can be identified among ends, with some being products and others activities that differ from the activities that created them. However, Aristotle’s argument differs from Kant’s as he states that every action is thought to aim at some good. There are numerous sciences, arts, and actions, and these yield numerous ends. For instance, strategy victory yields economic wealth, ship-building yields a vessel, and medical art yields health. ESSAY D Several philosophers consider human freedom as an individual’s capacity to decide and act as one prefers or chooses, without any external factor, restraint, or compulsion influencing the decision or action. It is for this reason that freedom is referred to as a condition of selfdetermination, regulation, and supervision, and it is one crucial aspect of a rational being. In this sense, freedom is often considered as a presupposition of one’s moral responsibility. This implies that the decision or action that I may be punished or rewarded, praised, or blamed for should be the ones that I have acted on freely. However, this begs the question, ‘Does human freedom actually exist?’ I believe that human freedom is the inalienable, essential, and inherent right of a rational being and that it offers within his/her knowledge framework. Therefore, a decision made or an action taken is often done within this knowledge framework and is a voluntary act. Even though formal reasoning is usually employed in decision making as a person considers the preferences involved and the likely outcome of a certain decision or action, it is impossible to overlook the potential factors that influence one's state of mind. I believe that all things that occur presuppose a previous condition, and for an outcome to happen, the previous condition must take place first. This suggests that an individual’s state of mind is often a result of interaction with external factors, or things. Hence the interaction with external factors shapes one's state of mind, as well as his/her desires and appetites. Since I have defined freedom as one’s capacity to decide and act as he/she prefers or chooses, without any external factor, restraint, or compulsion influencing the decision or action, it is credible to assume that our previous interaction with external things compromises our freedom as such interactions shape our state of mind, thus directly influencing the decisions we make, or the actions we take. Therefore, my idea of individual freedom can be likened to determinism as it argues that prior events determine or cause all physical events. By claiming that the argument presented by determinism can be deemed credible, I support the claim that our decisions and actions are unavoidable results of the sum of external forces acting at a particular time. This means that we lack free will as a result of determinism. Moral responsibility refers to the scenario where one deserves punishment, reward, blame, or praise as a result of his/her decisions or actions. This is often in accordance with an individual’s moral obligations as one should consider the differences and relationships between himself/herself and other people before engaging in an action or making a decision. I believe that each person is morally responsible for his/her deeds only if the was an option to engage in an alternative deed. Even though each individual tends to employ the use of rational thinking when faced with a dilemma, there may be instances we one is unable to do otherwise as a result of being deprived of his/her moral responsibility and freedom. In conclusion, I do believe that individual freedom does indeed exist. However, it is impossible for an individual to choose whether to be free or not, and this is largely because of responsibility. Responsibility involves adherence to one’s moral principles, as well as set rules and law. Individual freedom, on the other hand, threatens peace and unity as it involves being independent of these rules and law as one renounces the guidance of his/her moral obligation. Therefore, individual freedom and responsibility contradict each other as freedom cannot be considered freedom if one's choices and deeds are predetermined by laws and rules.