Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Free-Will - Coggle Diagram

- - - - For Libertarians these limitations are considered acceptable as the idea of complete freedom makes little sense.
        
        The main argument for believing in Libertariansim is that we experience freedom-and experience the feelings of right and wrong. However determinists would argues that this is simply an illusion brought about by the complex nature of our brains.
        The Libertarinims response to this is that if it is an illusion-Then it is a very persistent one. Moreover if the imaginery unconscious illusion is so complex-it is just as likely that they support real freedom compared to an imaginary one.
        
        In Summary Libertarianism argues for the existence of a mora self-that is able to override the personality and demands of Society-and can make a rational choice of what should be done in any given situation. One of the strongest arguments in favour of Libertarianism is that if Hard-Determinism is true than there would be no reason to discuss the question of whether we have free will. Yet we still discuss the question as most of us belive we are free.
- - - - Furthermore if Determinism is true, then in the religious sense Any sin against god, becomes redundant. This is because nobody can be blamed for crimes against god, that they were pore-determined to commit by God.
        
        American psychologist B-F-Skinner argued that the traditional methods of punishment were pointless, and do not reform. Instead Skinner proposed a general change in the Justice system. Skinner argued that it should be possible to design a world in which behaviour likely to be punished seldom or never occurs. Psychological conditioning can direct what people desire or want, so even if now they desire or want to rob,rape,steal,or destroy, they can be conditioned so that in future they desire to do nothing that benefits society.
  - - - The Law in the UK acknowledges diminished responsibility for a number of different types of people and crimes. For example Defense lawyers will make every effort to take into account the situation together with the defendant’s social circumstances and mental state. Otherwise the law punishes those who are judged to be guilty of a crime. For the specific reason that they could have done otherwise. Their behaviour was free, and not wholly determined by mental, social, or environmental circumstances.
        
        Kant insisted that “Ough implies can”-which is a libertarian point of view-we feel the moral compulsion concerning what we “Ought”-to do-which strongly suggests that we are free to do it.
        
        Moreover our freedom is clear from the fact that we are able to override that compulsion to do otherwise. At the same time we can feel guilt and remorse when we fail to do what we ought to do. Such feelings strongly suggest feelings of moral freedom
        
        Kant offered a libertarian account of punishment-where he argued that we can be free internally (In our minds) to follow the moral law, and externally (Politically) by being able to pursue our own ends. According to Kant crimes such as Theft, and Murder are wrong as they are not universalizable, and bring us back to a state of nature-(A system where there is no laws).
        Therefore in response to this, society must reverse the maxim on the criminal. This means that the thief should have his property taken, and the murderer should be killed. Therefore Kant’s maxim becomes “Whatever underserved evil you bring upon another person, should be brought on yourself”
        Kant therefore believes that the punishment for crimes, should be retribution.
  - - - Compatibilists therefore see themselves as morally accountable because
        -Their moral choices are not the results of physical restraints or coercive threats
        -they wanted’desired to act as they did despite being aware of alternative actions
        
        Hume argues that there is no point in punishing someone when their actions are the result of factors apart from what they choose Therefore Hume believes that people are only blameworthy when our choices come from our character. people actions are only judged by their internal character,affections,reasons.
        
        Therefore punishment should be part of social engineering through which fear of punishment helps to repress anti-social behaviour, equally we must reward virtues characteristics. For Hume this approach shows why the Christian idea of eternal reward in heaven and eternal punishment in hell makes little sense. Why then would there be eternal punishment for short term offences of creatures such as man. because our thoughts are short term, they should be guarded from eternal punishment. Our ideas of punishment should bear some proportion to the offence.
        
        This idea is furthered by the “Just-Desert”-theory-which means that the punishment should be equal the offence. For Hume this reinforces his views that Heaven,and Hell are pointless, and they are totally disproportionate to the crimes committed.
        
        Evaluation of the compatibilist account of moral responsibility.
        
        The idea of the “Just dessert”-Theory, that punishment should be proportionate to the crime, shows a major flaw in the compatibilist account of moral responsibility. This is that the idea of “Hell”, as a punhishment is unjustified, and out of proportion.
        
        Hume’s view that a will is free, if it has the liberty to follow its desires and wishes makes little sense to either determinists, or libertarians. For Determinsists the Will is as much determined as anything else. And for Libertarians the Will is free.
- - - - Compatibilism is furthered by the writings of Scottish Philiospher David Hume.
        In this Hume believes that we have what he described as “Liberty of spontaneity”-which is the ability to do what you desire.
        
        For Hume there is no laws of cause and effect in naturel-but a Constant Conjuction. Which is when certain consequences follow and event. Such as the breaking of glass-follows throwing a brick at a window.
        
        Hume defines freedom as “a power of acting or not acting according to the determination of the will”-For Hume our freedom lies in being able to carry out our desires without interference and restraint from external factors. This means freedom requires determinism, as it is essential that our desires are not random, and flow from our own genuine personality. Hume’s liberty of spontenaity is
        -Thinking what i like
        -saying what i like
        -doin what i like
        -meeting whom i like
        -going where i like
        It Is doing what I desire rather than choosing what i desire. This is the liberty of spontaneity-doing what one want’s.
        
        Evaluation
        
        The Problem with Determinism is that if it is true, then even the discussion or consideration of Determinism must be determined, and that seems to be counter intuitive.
        
        The Problem with Compatibilism is that if Determinism is true then for a Compatibilist to say that we can still preform voluntary acts—that we are free to follow our wishes and desires-makes no sense since voluntary acts must also be determined. Therefore if Determinsm is true than the idea of Compatibilism, preforming acts that could have had other outcomes, and is therefore free, becomes redundant. As Determinism defines all acts are already pre-determined, therefore there could not have been other possible outcomes for that action.
        
        The Problem with Libertarianism is that most libertarian arguments claim that although physical systems are determined , the mind is somehow free, but although there are several accounts of how this might be the case, there is no convincing proof of how the brain may act freely, and exactly where and what part of the brain is involved.
- - - - There are however situations where a person believes he or she is free-when they atually have no say over their actions. This can be because of social conditioning-or parental upbringing.
        
        A further requirement of moral conscience is that a person must be able to understand the difference between right-and wrong. To do this a person must have lived long enough to have developed the ability to distinguish from right and wrong, and not be hindered by mental definincies. For example Babies, and those suffering from Conditions such as Dementia would not be held morally accountable.
        
        In terms of knowledge of the good, there would therefore seem to be four exemptions
        1-Those who have not learned it
        2-those who cannot understand it
        3-those who have permanently forgotten it
        4-those who have temporarily forgotten it
        
        What are the sources if a person’s moral awareness in telling right from wrong.
        
        Others argue that we learn about right and wrong through social context
        
        This means that we pick up moral cues from our parents and from others in society. This also means that our morality, and how we view it is linked to our social and cultural traditions that we grew up in, which is shown through Multi-culturalism, and the examples of Abortion-Arranged Marriages-and Murder.
        
        Finally many argue that they instead have a religious morality
        
        Each religion presents its followers with a set of fundamental na moral principles, as to how they should live their lives. For a religious person, therefore knowledge of the good is encountered at three levels, the innate, the social, and the religious. Moral dilemmas arise when these come into conflict.
        
        Some will argue that they have an innate moral sense
        
        For Examnple, we generally feel it is right to go help someone who is in need of distress. This is argued by David Hume as an “In-built-moral sense”-
- - - - Determinism is often referred to as Reductionism -which is the view that to understand an entire one must reduce it to its smallest pieces.
        On this basis our thoughts can be seen as no less then electric impulses, and our actions are merely just results of chemical and electrical activity.
      - Baruch Spinoza was a Dutch Rationalist and philosopher who argued for the theory of Determinsm
        
        According to Spinoza when you feel like you are “Free”-you are instead extremely ignorant. This is because according to Spinoza everything in the world is pre-determined by physical causes. And therefore there is no scope for human freedom. The experience of freedom is an illusion generated by our ignorance of the totality of causes acting upon us.
        
        Scientific Determinism
        
        This is the view that all events, including humans actions and choices are determined by previous events and states of affairs, so there can be no freedom of will.
        
        The Brain itself can be analysed as a physical system, and thoughts appear to be electrical impulses in the brain. All of what we call a human being can be anyalsed by sciences such as anthropology, sociology, and physiology.
        
        This view of hard-determinism is furthered by French mathematician Pierre-Simon-Laplace. He argued that we ought to regard the present state of the universes as the effect of it’s anterior state and as the cause of the one which is to follow.
        
        When we look at physicals nature we see a chain of casualty that spreads outwards and backwards from any one physical event.
      - The Experiments of American Scientist Benjamin Libert help to further the idea of Hard Determinism.
        
        Libet concluded that the unconvinced electrical process of the Brain prepares to act well before we are conscious of the urge to move,
        
        The Conclusion of this is that the individual does not have free will to move and instead is controlled by sub-conscience determined electrical process
        
        These experiments by Libet were later denied
    - - This is a form of Hard Determinms that argues that all behaviour is the result of genetic and environmental conditions and all human actions are conditioned by the good or bad consequences of previous decisions, so there can be no freedom of the will.
        
        This argument is presented by American Psychologist B-F-Skinner who described it as Pschological behaviourism which is the idea that all behaviour is the product of genetic and environmental conditioning.
        
        Skinner’s approach is often described as Radical behaviourism-as it involves aspects of mental activity.
        
        A well known example of this is presented by Russian Scientist Ivan Pavlov. Who’s experiments revolved around the presenting of Dogs with treats and certain stimuli-eventually the food became associated with the stimuli.
        
        Evaluation
        
        Skinner’s approach was criticised by American Scientist Noam Chomsky-who dismissed it as merely just speculation and assumptions. One particular criticism of Skinner’s assumptions is that his application of the principle of animal behaviour to the much more complex human behaviour is unsound
        
        Another response to Skiner is that if human behaviourism in its entirety is merely just a set of conditional responses determined by genetics and the environment-then his own thesis is simply just a conditioned response
    - - This is a form of Hard Determinms that suggests that our future is determined by God’s omniscience. So therefore there can be no form of free-will.
        
        In it;s earliest form, theological Determinms led the likes of St Augustine and Calvin to the doctrine of Predesntination, and Pre-determination-Where all events are pre-determined by God, aswell as those who are saved-and those who are to be dammed.
      - Evaluations
        
        If there is no God then theological Determinsm has no ground-however if there is one then it is completely justified.
        
        The Issue seems to Hinge on God’s relationship with times
        -A timeless God-Aquinas’s view that God does not exist in time rather he exists timelessly. For God, there is no today, tomorrow or yesterday-Timeless God sees all times, and history unravel. Some argue that God’s omniscience means that God sees the results of our future free choices but does not cause them. On this view, God has the power to intervene and control, but does not. This is because he wishes human to have free choices
        
        A temporal God-The other view is that God exists in time. If this is the case God cannot know the future. So theological determinism is false.