Modern Ethics/Determinism
Introduction
Many current philosophers hold different claims and views on moral responsibility. The arguments are usually found on their philosophical works. There are those who believe that we truly have moral responsibility of our own actions while others believe that moral responsibility is impossible. Some with an example of Galen Strawson call it basic argument whereby they hold that our actions are usually determined by our own character which is subsequently resolute from our already past experience, nature laws as well as heredity. Notably others call their arguments Mind arguments whereby they believe that if human actions are performed randomly then these actions do not show any moral responsibility (Mckenna, 187).
Additionally, other philosophers such as Simon Blackburn present naturalistic hypothesis which states that human beings value things because they hold a stable outlook which is favorable to those things that they value. He believes that human beings values actions because they coordinate with other people’s actions, they therefore perform actions not because they are morally responsible but because they want other people to notice them. Therefore in this brief analysis, we will discuss Galen Strawson hard determinism, Peter van Inwagen’s Mind arguments as well as Simon Blackburn soft Determinism. The overview will also compare both Galen Strawson’s arguments with those of Peter van Inwagen’s.
Galen Strawson: Basic Argument
It is worth noting that Galen Strawson upholds those arguments initially put across by his father, Peter F. Strawson. He holds that out feelings and attitudes towards a particular action cannot vanish if determinism was actually correct. According to Galen, free will or complete moral responsibility is quite impossible whether or not determinism is true. He is referred by many as a hard determinist. This is because he does not indicate that free will is not viable because of the correctness or incorrectness of determinism. From his own views, Galen does not realize the incompatibility of free will and determinism; neither does he realize the incompatibility of free will with indeterminism. Whether or not actions are randomly formulated, chance is the direct causative factor of the actions, therefore such actions holds no moral responsibility. Galen does believe that people act out of free will (Mckenna, 187).
According to him the word free is quite significant because it can actually show whether people are morally responsible or not. If people are free agents, then they can be said to be truly morally responsible. Free will would allow people to be judged or blamed for their own actions. Galen thinks that people can never be responsible for their actions because of our hereditary factor. For us to be truly responsible for own actions we need to be free agents but not moral agents. Whether or not people become their own moral agents, they cannot deserve moral blame or praise. He strongly holds that nothing causes itself but things happen because of a certain causative factor. It is for this reason that people cannot be held responsible for their own actions.
Therefore people should only be held responsible of their actions if their actions are as a result of free will which human beings lack. People lack moral responsibility because they do not act for out of free will and not because he/she is a free agent. One act because he has the capacity to act, he has strength, courage, confidence and mental capacity which is naturally instilled in him/her. And because there is no human beings who are responsible for who they are, what they possess as well as their mental capacity, they cannot be said to be responsible of their own actions. We lack correct moral responsibility because we do not posses true determination. Human beings tend to take actions because of the qualities that make them who they are. For that reason, if one needs to be truly responsible for his/her action he/she must be responsible for whom she/he is (Mckenna, 187).
He further argues that our actions are as a result of events and nature laws, therefore it is not the by choice that our actions are predetermined. What happened before we are brought to live is not our responsibility. As a result what takes place in the world around us as well as our actions are not by our choice, therefore we are not responsible for our actions. Human beings cannot deny they are the way they are because of early experiences as well as heredity factor. They therefore cannot wish to gain true moral responsibility by changing who they are.
Consequently Galen believes that we are never truly morally responsible because we are not free agents. Our actions are not determined by free will. We are who we are because of our past experiences as well as heredity. Human beings lack moral responsible because they are not subjects of their own actions. Their actions are not by chance but because of the way they are. According to Galen, moral responsibility requires free will which we as human beings lack as far as our actions are concerned (Mckenna, 190).
Peter Van Inwagen: Mind Argument
Van Inwagen has been credited for restoring incompatibles idea. He asserts that it is quite difficult to generate the problem associated with determinism and free will. He further states that liberty and necessity are the two factors that can establish whether human beings posses’ free will or whether their will is actually directed by causal necessity. He holds that determinism is compatible with free will. Therefore if free will is actually compatible with determinism, then free will involves determinism. He argues that if past determinism establishes our unique future or actions, then such determinism is not correct. This is because he strongly believes that determinism is actually compatible with free will. If such determinism is true then human beings should never be responsible for their own actions. According to Van Inwagen, Human beings should be responsible for their own actions due to that fact that free will is compatible with determinism (Moya, 144).
He asserts that free will entails determinism and it cannot be believed without this determination, “our actions and will are determined”. Peter Van Inwagen arguments are contrary of what Galen holds. He thinks that Galen is mistaken on the issue of free will, determinism and indeterminism. Galen strongly holds that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism. Galen asserts that nothing happens due to determination but he instead argues that human actions are random and it for this reason that human beings are not morally responsible for their own actions because their actions lacks free will. Van Inwagen asserts that if determinism is correct then our actions are as a result of events and nature laws. He seems to hold some similar thoughts like those of Galen (Mckenna, 189).
However, he believes that Galen made assumptions on determinism and indeterminism. Galen indicates that whether determinism or determinism is correct or wrong, our actions lack moral responsibility despite free will. Galen fails to gives possibility of moral responsibility in situations where determinism or indeterminism is true or wrong (Mckenna, 187).However, Peter asserts that if determinism is actually correct then our actions are not because of our own power. He also thinks Galen fails to use the word free will correctly. Therefore this causes some deficiencies in his assumptions. Van Inwagen identifies indeterminism with possibility. This means that some actions can actually happen because of they are destined to happen and not because their have been determined. He asserts that actions that occur due to chance are not being under the control of the agent and they are therefore not performed freely. On the other hand Galen provides that actions that are performed out of chance are performed freely. It from this perspective that Van Inwagen sees Galen Basic argument as inadequate due to the fact he believes all actions are done randomly (Moya, 144).
Peter’s mind argument illustrates that indeterminism involves actions that occur by chance. These actions are not controlled by anyone or any agent; therefore such actions cannot constitute free will since they are not manipulated by anybody or any force. It is for this reason that he believes that the central assumptions of Strawson Basic Argument are mistaken. Galen asserts whether Determinism, indeterminism, are correct or wrong free will is incompatible with them. Therefore human actions lack moral responsibility due to the fact that they are performed out of causative factors that are instilled in us through events and experience, heredity as well as nature laws. They therefore lack morally responsibility since they require lack free will. According to Galen morally responsibility is a mere illusion that can never happen due to the fact our actions lacks free will (Mckenna, 187
Blackburn’s Soft Determinism
Blackburn who follows the foot steps of Hume. He encompasses the theory of sentimentalism in his philosophical works. However Simon also incorporates philosophical elements of Smith. His arguments strive to underline whether or not moral responsibility is grounded in structure of human nature or that of the universe. He provides a naturalistic theory that is line with the way people view the world scientifically. He argues that, for a person to value something, he/she must have a natural favor towards that particular thing. He however, asserts that morality is as a result of nature of human beings. According to him, moral responsibility is triggered by our sentiments. For instance is a person cries because another one is crying, their actions have moral responsible. Therefore from his perspectives, moral responsibility triggers by human actions (French, 13).
The process of moral responsibility actually commences with our natural feelings that we hold towards other people or things. Our aspirations to do what we think is right makes our actions to be morally rights. It is from this notion that our actions towards other traits constituents our moral responsibility. Human actions are determined by our sentiments. Notably, Blackburn does not believe that our actions are controlled by coherent standards. He instead argues that our own actions are as a result of our feelings and emotions and it if for this reason that we actually become responsible of our own actions. He further states that if our actions are truly governed by reasonable standards, those people who lack the rational traits may actually be condemned. Therefore our actions are determined by our human nature and they therefore have some sense of morality (French, 13).
Conclusion
Different philosophers have different views regarding the issue of moral responsibility as well as human actions. Some hold that our actions are determined by our nature as human beings while others argue that our actions are subject to rational standards. These standards are provided by nature laws, events as well as hereditary factors. It is for this reason that such actions lacks moral responsibility. However, those actions that are triggered by our sentiments have a sense o0f moral value.
Work Cited
Carlos Moya. Moral responsibility: the ways of skepticism. London: Taylor & Francis Publising, 2006.p 144
Micheal Mckenna. Free will and reactive attitudes: perspectives on P.F. Strawson’s “Freedom and resentment”. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008.p 187
Peter French. Free will and moral responsibility, Volume 20. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005 .p13
