Read The Assigned Reading From The Chapter Then Choose O ✓ Solved
read The Assigned Reading From The Chapter Thenchoose O
Read the assigned reading from the chapter. Then choose ONE of the questions below to answer. Answer the question you chose in a response that is a minimum of 2 paragraphs. Be sure to explain your answers and give reasons for your views. You should cite the textbook and use brief quotations and summaries from the textbook in your response.
Do NOT use any other sources besides the textbook. Are you bothered by the thought of a rigidly determined existence? Does the idea that all your actions are determined disturb you-- or reassure you? How would a personal belief in determinism affect your view of crime and punishment? Do you think that people are generally responsible for their crimes, or are they not responsible due to deterministic forces beyond their control?
Do you believe that every event has a cause and that free actions are possible? If so, are these beliefs compatible? Does it matter to you whether you have free will? Would your behavior change if you believed (or didn't believe) that all your actions were determined by forces beyond your control? Are free acts, as Stace and compatibilists say, "those whose immediate causes are psychological states in the agent?" Would such acts still be free if the "psychological states" were secretly controlled by someone else through hypnosis?
Sample Paper For Above instruction
The debate between determinism and free will has long fascinated philosophers, ethicists, and psychologists alike. Determinism posits that every event, including human actions, is caused by preceding factors, effectively denying free will. Conversely, compatibilists argue that free will can coexist with determinism, suggesting that even if our actions are caused, they can still be considered free if they align with our internal psychological states and desires. This philosophical tension influences how we perceive moral responsibility, criminal justice, and personal agency.
I personally find the idea of a rigidly determined universe both unsettling and somewhat reassuring. On one hand, if all my actions are predetermined by prior causes, then notions of moral responsibility become complicated; I might feel less accountable for my choices. On the other hand, understanding that my behavior is shaped by psychological and environmental factors can foster compassion for others and promote a more empathetic approach to justice. For example, if criminal behavior results from deterministic forces beyond an individual's control, then harsh punishments may be less justified, and emphasis might shift toward rehabilitation rather than retribution. This perspective aligns with some interpretations of compatibilism, which argue that responsibility depends on internal psychological states rather than ultimate autonomy.
Regarding the question of whether all events have causes and if free actions are possible, I believe that every event has a cause, consistent with a causal universe. However, I also think that the concept of free will can be reconciled with determinism through compatibilist views. According to compatibilists like Stace, free acts are "those whose immediate causes are psychological states in the agent," which allows for a form of free will that is compatible with determinism as long as the individual's psychological states originate internally rather than from external coercion or manipulation. Nevertheless, if psychological states are secretly controlled by external forces, such as hypnosis or mind control, the notion of free will becomes problematic. In such cases, the act's freedom is compromised because the agent does not genuinely control the psychological states causing the act.
Ultimately, whether or not one believes in free will affects personal accountability and societal notions of justice. If we accept that our actions can be influenced or determined by external forces beyond our awareness, it may lead to more compassionate responses to criminality, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. Conversely, a strict belief in absolute free will may foster a punitive approach based on individual responsibility. Both views have profound implications for how society structures its moral and legal systems, highlighting the importance of understanding the nuanced relationship between causality and autonomy.
References
- Fodor, J. (1974). Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. MIT Press.
- Leibniz, G. W. (1710). Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil. Open Court Publishing.
- Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529-566.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2020). Free Will. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
- Van Inwagen, P. (1983). An Essay on Free Will. Oxford University Press.
- Mele, A. R. (2009). Effective Intentions: The Power of Conscious Will. Oxford University Press.
- Sammy, J. (2009). The compatibilist dilemma. Philosophical Studies, 143(3), 393-414.
- Waller, B. N. (2003). Deep causality and the concept of free will. Journal of Philosophy, 100(10), 531-561.
- Wolf, S. (1990). Freedom within reason. Oxford University Press.
- Holland, J. (2002). Against Naturalism: The Human Dimension. Rowman & Littlefield.