Eduqas Alevel Rs Ethics 4F the implications of libertarianism and free will

what is the implications of libertarianism on moral responsibility

if libertarians are correct then the theory influences belief regarding the responsibility of human beings for moral decisions and behaviour. It is is not a clear case that if we are free we are responsible

libertarianism: the worth of human ideas of right, wrong and moral value.

Sartre claimed that only the ideas of right or wrong and moral value that mater ar yours, There is no objective rules that we can follow and he concludes that you are the only one that is responsible for your actions and that you have the ultimate responsibility.

There is worth:

my human ideas of right and wrong mean that I can create a decision by myself for myself, it is an act of creation and its value is intrinsic as it comes from me alone so therefore our actions will have consequences or benefits based on how we see the word good and bad to mean

no worth:

moral values and community ideas of right and wrong have no power over us and we act in bad faith when we behave as though they are authoritative.

libertarianism: the value in blaming moral agents for immoral acts

Sirigu's research demonstrated that free will is located in the human brain but there is no judgement in terms of moral agents can therefore be blamed for their actions. Descartes says that it would be illogical to praise and blame automations and we have to look at the causes of their actions.

worth in blaming:

if this research has accurately identified free will in our brain its is value to praise and blame people for actions as the ultimate and final decision does come from their brain, its is their decision to act on it or not

not valuable to blame:

Sirigu's research does not fully demonstrate free will, it only shows that there Is the ability to decide to act or not to act in the parietal cortex. There is no value in blaming an agent for caused acts as they are most of the time unconscious actions. Like if a person was drowning and someone went to save them but they pushed them under to lift themselves up, would you hold them morally accountable for their actions as it would have been unconscious and a split second decision to try and save their life.

libertarianism: the usefulness of normative ethics

Rogers maintained that we behave as we do because of the way we perceive the situation. No one else can know how we perceive the situation so we have the final decision and that cannot be judged by others as they would never be able to see how we have seen it. If a child is raised in a nurturing environment or we are given the opportunity to self actualise. Kant says that moral laws are a priori synthetic reasoning. these laws are objective and their existence is logical only if we have the ability to obey or disobey them.

Normative ethics is useful:

- situation ethics or ethical egoism provide us with a good environment, a healthy self connect and freedom in their decision making so they can use their full potential.

normative ethics is not useful:

- natural law or divine command instils excessive constraints. They prevent an agent from becoming fully functioning, the ideal self being at odds with their actual behaviour

what are the implications of free will on religions belief

if religious ideas of free will are correct this will have a significant effect on what is logical to believe about God and his nature

free will: the link between God and evil

if we are free being the n that leads to ideas about the links between God and evil.

there is no link:

- evil originates in humans from humans

- evil does not exist and it is just an illusion of the absence if good and to encourage us to do good

- God has no powers over our moral actions we have free will, in this case he does not will evil or bring it about, it is all our responsibility

there is a link:

- God is responsible for creating natural evil and giving us the ability to perform moral evil

- God is sovereign over everything, he permits and limits evil without causing or willing it God allows evils so we can be truly free

weak link:

- God created natural evil to enable real freedom and as a punishment

- God gave us moral evil to enable free choices and to teach us to be more like him.

free will: the implications for God's omnipotence and omnibenevolnce

God is not omnipotent if:

- he cannot remove evil from the world

- we act to save ourselves not him

- he could only create the world this way

- we can choose to turn away from his will

God is not omnibenevolent if:

- he created the world with built in suffering

- he gave us the capacity to harm each other

- he allows the suffering of innocents

- he foreknew this when he gave us free will

could be powerful if:

- preserves free will be allowing evil

- limits himself by refraining from interfering with our choices

could be loving if:

- his gift of freedom is the best thing for us

- justice for innocent suffering was served elsewhere

God is not omnipotent or benevolent:

- God cannot save anyone who suffers unless they acted well

- christ is powerless to save without humanity choosing him

God is omnipotent and benevolent

- God is good not arbitrary he allows salvation to all deserving people

- God has power - his grace helps us to reach salvation at the end of life

free will: the use of prayer and the existence of miracles

religious people believe:

God has answers to the prayers of those who freely ask him for help

God has the power to intervene in the natural course of events

1. don't miracles interfere with free will?

2. what happens if two people pray for the opposite things?

3. if God answers prayers or performs miracles why doesn't he do it more frequently?

4. what is the point in praying if God avoided answering to preserve our freedom?

Swinburne:

If God violates a natural law to perform a miracle it must be for a divine reason, If he does so it must be rare to avoid compromising our free will. To require God to reduce evil effects yet retain our freedom is to desire a toy world where there are no opportunities for real decision making.

Ward:

God is unchanging and omniscient sprayer does not inform or persuade him. Prayer is about bringing oneself inline with God to freely become more like him, he does not force us to be like him as that would affect our freedom.