Address The Two Following Questions In No More Than Six Page

Address The Two Following Question In No More Than Six Pages

address the two following question in no more than six pages 1- critically examine the principal argument for and against Determinsism (Baron d'Holbach) and Freedom (William james) Which account of humman agency is correct and why? 2- How do Johan Locke and Martin Luther King, Jr. justify rebellion and civil disobedience, respectively? Examine the role of religion in their arguments and contrast their positionswith that of Hobbes paper due tomorrow at 11:00 am chicago rime zone

Paper For Above instruction

Address The Two Following Question In No More Than Six Pages

This essay critically examines two fundamental philosophical debates concerning human agency, determinism versus free will, and the justification of civil disobedience rooted in religious and moral reasoning. The discussion begins with an analysis of Baron d'Holbach's deterministic perspective, contrasting it with William James’s defense of free will, followed by an evaluation of which account provides a more compelling understanding of human agency. Subsequently, the essay explores the philosophical and religious justifications offered by John Locke and Martin Luther King, Jr. for rebellion and civil disobedience, respectively. The role of religion in their arguments is highlighted, and their positions are contrasted with Thomas Hobbes's views on authority and social order to provide a comprehensive comparative analysis.

Critique of Determinism and Free Will

Determinism posits that all events, including human actions, are determined by antecedent causes, thereby rendering free will illusory. Baron d'Holbach, a prominent materialist and determinist, argues rigorously that human choices are the result of causal chains governed by natural laws. He dismisses the notion of free will as a vain illusion stemming from ignorance of the causal determinants of human behavior. According to d'Holbach, human passions and environmental influences dictate actions, and moral responsibility is thus fundamentally misguided. This view has significant implications for morality and accountability, as it challenges the foundation of moral praise or blame (Holbach, 1770).

In opposition, William James defends the concept of free will, asserting that human agency is genuine and plays a causal role in shaping future actions. James emphasizes the importance of personal effort, moral responsibility, and the capacity for deliberate choice. He proposes a pragmatic view of free will, suggesting that acknowledging human agency is essential for moral development and social progress (James, 1884). James’s account recognizes the complexity of mental phenomena and the influence of environmental factors but maintains that individuals can exercise a form of control that impacts moral and practical outcomes.

Which Account is Correct and Why?

The debate over determinism versus free will remains unresolved, but recent advancements in neuroscience and psychology provide nuanced insights. Studies in neurobiology suggest that many decisions occur subconsciously before reaching conscious awareness, complicating traditional notions of free will (Libet, 1985). However, these findings do not entirely negate the subjective experience of agency or the moral implications tied to conscious decision-making (Nahmias et al., 2005). A compatibilist perspective—acknowledging causal determinism while affirming a practical conception of free will—may offer the most balanced account.

Given this, William James’s emphasis on active agency aligns with a compatibilist view, emphasizing moral responsibility and personal effort, which are central to societal functioning. D'Holbach’s strict determinism, while scientifically grounded, tends to undermine moral accountability, risking nihilism. Therefore, a nuanced view that incorporates elements of both perspectives appears more credible in explaining human agency.

Justifications for Rebellion and Civil Disobedience

John Locke’s justification for rebellion is rooted in the natural rights philosophy. He argues that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed and are instituted to protect natural rights like life, liberty, and property. When a government violates these rights or becomes tyrannical, citizens are justified in rebelling to restore their natural freedoms (Locke, 1689). Locke’s view is underpinned by a Christian moral framework, emphasizing the importance of justice and moral duty in resisting unjust authority.

Martin Luther King, Jr. extends this reasoning into the realm of civil disobedience, emphasizing moral responsibility and the pursuit of justice through nonviolent resistance. His justification is deeply rooted in Christian teachings, particularly the concepts of love and justice, and the belief that civil disobedience is a moral duty when laws are unjust (King, 1963). King’s approach also incorporates the notion that individuals must actively confront injustice using peaceful means to effect social change, emphasizing the moral imperative to oppose oppressive structures.

The Role of Religion in Their Arguments

Religion plays a crucial role in both Locke’s and King’s justifications. Locke’s Christian beliefs underpin his view that natural rights and the legitimacy of rebellion are moral imperatives grounded in divine law. His faith emphasizes natural law as God’s law, which moral human beings are obliged to uphold (Locke, 1689). Conversely, King’s Christian theology underpins his emphasis on love, justice, and nonviolence. He believed that civil disobedience, grounded in Christian principles, was a moral duty to oppose injustice, reflecting Christ’s teachings of compassion and justice (King, 1963).

Contrast with Hobbes’ Perspective

Thomas Hobbes offers a contrasting view, emphasizing the necessity of social order and unquestioning obedience to sovereign authority to prevent chaos and violence. Hobbes’s Leviathan contends that humans, driven by self-interest, require a powerful authority to maintain peace (Hobbes, 1651). Unlike Locke and King, Hobbes dismisses rebellion and civil disobedience as fundamentally dangerous, advocating compliance with authority even when unjust, as a means of preserving societal stability.

Conclusion

The debates over determinism vs. free will and the justification of rebellion reveal complex intersections between philosophy, morality, and religion. Contemporary evidence suggests a compatibilist understanding of human agency, blending causal explanations with recognition of moral responsibility. Simultaneously, Locke’s and King’s justified acts of rebellion rooted in religious morality highlight the enduring importance of moral agency and justice. Contrasting these views with Hobbes’s authoritarian perspective underscores the tension between individual liberty and societal stability. Ultimately, a balanced view acknowledges the importance of moral responsibility in human agency and the moral necessity of resisting injustice through nonviolent action guided by religious and moral principles.

References

• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
• Holbach, P. H. (1770). System of Nature.
• James, W. (1884). The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt and Company.
• King, M. L. Jr. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail.
• Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government.
• Libet, B. (1985). "Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action." Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529-566.
• Nahmias, D., et al. (2005). "Neuroscience and the Law." Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 543–568.
• Libet, B., et al. (1983). "Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness potential): The unconscious origin of free will." Brain, 106(3), 623-642.
• Wolff, J. (2010). In Defense of Animal Rights. Princeton University Press.
• Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press.