Critically Assess the View That We Are Not Responsible for Our Evil Actions Essay Example for Free

Critically Assess the View That We Are Not Responsible for Our Evil Actions Essay Many Philosophers, such as Hoderich and John Calvin, believe that humans do not have free will to act in moral situations and that all moral actions have uncontrollable prior causes. Hard determinists, therefore, follow the belief that humans can not be morally blameworthy for their actions, evil or not, because their actions are predetermined. However, this is a ridiculous stance to take as humans are free to make moral choices, meaning they are entirely responsible for their evil actions. Many argue that hard determinism is the best approach to take when assessing this hypothesis as once you abandon the outdated notion of freedom; you can create a much better world. B.F. Skinner supports this view by recognising that since people are ultimately the result of their conditions, â€Å"and will get conditioned by their upbringing and environments anyway†, we ought to control people’s upbringing and environments as much as possible to ensure that their conditioning is positive. Skinner argued that such a plan would be more helpful than the current situation, in which peoples conditions is ultimately dependent on to luck. The case of Leopold and Loeb demonstrates this idea perfectly. If you look at the case on the surface, it seems like an act of pure evil, both boys kidnapped Bobby Franks and demanded ransom from his family, when this failed, they murdered him by hitting him over the head with a chisel. Harrow, whom was their lawyer and a follower of hard determinism, argued that â€Å"they killed [Bobby Franks] because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite process that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped†. If one looks into the background of these two boys, evidence refutes this point; both of these boys were from very privileged backgrounds, Leob was actually the son of the vice president. Despite this, Leob was fascinated by detective stories; he read about crimes, he planned them and he eventually committed them. Leopold, on the other hand, who was reading Philosophy at the University of Chicago, became attracted to Friedrich Nitezche and his criticism of moral codes; he believed that those who followed Nitezche were super human and did not have to abide by the moral laws that others did. Darrow argued that Leopold’s obsession with crime and Loebs fascination with Nitezhce was a form of rebellion against the well-meaning, but strict and controlling, governess who raised him. They can not be hold morally responsible for the murder of Bobby Franks because each â€Å"child takes one shape or another shape depending not upon the boy himself, but on what surrounds him.†. However, this is a weak view to take as it suggests that people do not need to feel guilty for their actions; they have no moral responsibility, as their actions are already determined. If people were not morally responsible for their evil actions, then the world by a chaotic place, people could commit evil crimes and blame it upon their surroundings. It is therefore clear that hard determinism is a ridiculous view to take when assessing this hypothesis, as it would lead to utter anarchy and the notion of sin would be undermined. Many argue that soft determinism is the best approach to take when assessing the question, as it does not rule out free will- the two are compatible and so moral decisions and moral debate remains possible. Followers of soft determinism believe that some of our actions are conditioned, while others have so complex a collection of causes that they may properly be described as freely decided or willed. Hume is the Philosopher who is normally associated with this idea. Hume believed that events are determined because of a casual link between objects. Take for example, in 2012, when the travellers were prevented from flying as a result of ash from a volcanic eruption in Iceland. For Hume, this casual link is called the constant union of objects. For instance, the volcano’s eruption prevents you from flying; that is outside of the control of the individual. But the response to that situation produces free will. In relation to murder, one could argue that your upbringing is determined, but the way you respond is a result of free will. This is a differing view to that of Take for instance the case of Mary Bell in 1968 who was convicted of the murder of two toddles. She was subject to an awful upbringing; her mother was a prostitute who specialised in sado- masochism- Mary was forced to listen to her mother perform these acts. A soft- determinist could argue that although Mary was subject to an abusive upbringing, she must hold some moral responsibility for her actions. Although this view seems highly logical, soft determinists have not agreed on precisely what is and what is not a determining factor in human action. This means that contradictions between followers of soft determinists are highly likely. Many disagree that Libertarianism is the best approach to apply to questions surrounding moral responsibility. They believe that cause and affect is too apparent in the world for us to simply disregard it; it must have an impact on human actions. Take for instance, the idea of murder, if you are brought up in a family in which murder is regarded as a sin, you are less likely to commit such a crime as one understands that murder immoral. This demonstrates the idea of cause and effect perfectly; someone teaches you that murder is immoral; the cause, you understand this and therefore do not do it; the effect. Despite this, one could refute this weakness by arguing that these are just moral rules that coincide with the societal norm, they do not strip us of our free will. Even if we were not brought up with these moral codes, we can still abide by them as we posses free will. The idea of free will also makes logical sense to us. In our day-to-day lives, we feel as if we posses it; we make daily decisions based upon our feelings, not something that has already been determined. As put by Aquinas, â€Å"man chooses not of necessity but freely†. Peter Van Inwagen’s also follows this approach, he argues that we can see that we posses free will by the deliberation of two choices of action; if we are able to do both, then we must have it as it ultimately is our choice to do either or. Peter Van Inwagen used an analogy to demonstrate this idea; you are walking along a road with many branches on it, which branch you choose to go down is your decision. Therefore, in relation to moral responsibility, we should all be held responsible for any evil actions committed as they do not come about as a result of chance or random events. Some may be subject to events which could potentially alter their morality, but they are free to choose which path they take. To conclude, although hard- determinism has some strengths, the fact that it believes that we should not be held morally responsible for actions mean it is useless when looking at questions surrounding moral responsibility. Soft- determinism, on the other hand, is far too vague and would produce many contradictions. Libertarianism is the best approach to take as it makes logical sense; we can see we possess free will and we should therefore be punished if we commit evil actions.

Pragmatism Vs. Idealism (a Man :: essays research papers

Morality is often overpowered by materialistic pursuits. In â€Å"A Man for All Seasons†,Robert Bolt shows the corruption of those who put self interest above all other values. His use of such characters as Thomas Cromwell, Richard Rich, Chapuys and Wolsey help convey this corruption. There is yet another character who is a pragmatist that Bolt successfully represents. Thomas More is an idealist as well as a pragmatist, for he is prepared to give up everything for his beliefs and takes all precautions possible to make his case â€Å"watertight†. It is through this pragmatism and idealism that Robert Bolt shows the corruption of the times.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Thomas More believed in his ideals to such an extent that he was prepared to sacrifice his life for them, if the need arrived. He was a firm believer in the separation of Church and State. When the King tried to start the reformation of England and the Church by a simple Act of Parliament called the Act of Supremacy, Thomas refused to sign it. He believed that the indictment of the King was â€Å"grounded in an Act of Parliament which is directly repugnant to law of God. The King in Parliament cannot bestow he Supremacy of the Church because it is a Spiritual Supremacy! And more to this the immunity of the Church is promised both in Magna Carta and the Kings own Coronation Oath!†(Bolt, p. 92) The marriage was yet another reason why More refused to sign the Act. He knew that if he signed it then he would accept the King as the Supreme Head of Church and thus give the King the power to â€Å"dispense with the dispensation† which to him was against his morals and religion. Of course the marriage was associated with other things -attack on the abbeys, the whole Reformation policy-to which More was violently opposed. When told by Norfolk that his parish attire is a disrespect to the King and his office. More replies that â€Å"the service of God is not a dishonor to any office†(Bolt, p.26) Even though he loves the King to death as proved by Mores loyalty towards him, he values his morality and religion more. For his conscience is a â€Å"little area where I must rule myself†(Bolt,p.34). His position is perfectly described in his belief that â€Å"when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties... they lead their country by a short route to chaos.

Is Your Glass Half Full or Half Empty Essay

Shakespeare quotes â€Å"there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so. † These are words of wisdom, as Shakespeare had discovered centuries ago that are still relative to the daily events that occur for the average twenty-first century adult. People often waste too much time thinking about small negative aspects of their day which creates added stress that is not necessary. Like over analyzing every detail of a minor nuisance you’ve encountered. Stress from daily negative occurrences throughout the day everyday add up and have significant harmful effects on mental and physical health. Stress, however is subjective and lies in the eye of the beholder. Therefore stress really does not exist at all, it is all in your mind and you are the one that makes the decision to over analyze every little detail of a situation or not, which allows your thinking, perceptions, attitudes, and appraisals of events to determine what is stressful to you. What initially causes stress is anything that you look upon that is bad or negative in some way. It is how and what we perceive to be negative that brings upon stress on one’s daily life. A decision is based on one’s judgments of their own estimation of value, worth, and quality given a specific situation. According to Cannon-Bard’s theory of emotion, the response comes after the fear experience. Therefore one will experience fear, or stress from threats, illness, change, danger, pressure, conflict, long term frustration, or anxiety. Stress and fear can evolve from any form of threat that is real or perceived. Cognitive reactions are the result of Shakespeare’s quote, therefore the responses to stress after the initial threat or fear. Cognitive reactions teach you methods to change your perception of the way you think for future prevention. Neuroticism is the response that includes emotional, anxious, insecure, and vulnerable aspects regarding stress. Health consequences include both physical and psychological effects. Physical effects include hypertension, eating disorders, procrastination, low immune system, and high levels of cortisol. Psychological effects include impaired memory, impaired performance, and inability to respond to a situation. Health psychology is the most current approach to increase the potential of general well-being. Health psychologists believe in prevention rather than treatment. Therefore they help to predict the onset before an episode. Changing one’s behavior plays a huge role in the resolution of healthy living. Cognitive Therapy is the modern approach which involves changing the way you think and understanding the reason to abandon your old reasoning for a new different perspective on the same thought. The ABC model, where the B in the model stands for beliefs is the most crucial part when analyzing Shakespeare quote. The problem is that people have different believes, opinions, and perceptions of what is good and bad. Unconsciously we begin to form a belief system of what we believe is good and bad from parents, peers, and school. We use beliefs to interpret ourselves, other people and the world in general. In conclusion, the essence on Shakespeare’s quote is to never say anything bad about yourself therefore you avoid the entire idea of the negative pessimistic attitude. The power of positive thinking will change your perspective and feelings. From a cognitive perspective, you can create happiness by decreasing your negative thoughts and increasing your positive optimistic thoughts and views and reducing stress to live a healthy and positive life. When analyzing the question â€Å"is your glass half full or empty? † is hinting at how you view life in general either with an optimistic or pessimistic view. The decision is ultimately up to you.

Matthew Berger - ThoughtCo