Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
What are the different factors to be explored when considering the implications of Free will/ Libertarianism on moral responsibility?
1) The worth of human ideas of right, wrong, and moral value from normative ethics.
2) The value in blaming moral agents for immoral acts.
What ethical formula ascribed to Kant describes how we are only morally obliged to do something if we are logically able to perform it?
'Ought implies can'
What is a Kant quote from his 'Critique of Pure Reason' explains "Ought implies can"?
"The action to which the 'ought' applies must indeed be possible under natural conditions."
Using Kant's requirement, how does moral responsibility fit into Free Will/ Libertarianism?
Unlike Determinism where we have no free will and it is therefore not possible to act in any other way, Libertarianism suggests that we are completely free from deterministic factors to choose how to act. Therefore, we can be held morally responsible for our actions.
What does Aristotle say about moral responsibility?
Aristotle declared that we should not be held guilty for an act we did not do freely, or for not doing doing something that was impossible for us to do.
What does Sartre say about our ability to have acted in a different way than we did?
Sartre emphasised that we can act however we want and that people who deny this are acting in bad faith.
What is a Sartre quote about people who try to deny their freedom?
"Those who hide from this total freedom with deterministic excuses, I shall call cowards."
What did William James say about Determinism being used to avoid complete moral responsibility?
He called Determinism a "quagmire of evasion".
What does A.J. Ayer say which challenges the idea that we can be held morally responsible if our choices are completely free?
Ayer argued that human beings can only be held responsible because our actions are subject to causation.
"If it is an accident that I chose to act as I did, then it is merely a matter of chance that I did not choose otherwise; and if it is merely a matter of chance that I did not choose otherwise, then it is irrational to hold me morally responsible for my choices."
What did Sartre say about causation and our Free will?
Sartre acknowledged that there is a facticity about our lives that we have not chosen- we are physical beings who live in a specific time and in specific circumstances which determine facts about us. But whereas these facts of causation would determine the existence of 'en-soi' objects, 'pour soi' human beings are more than these facts.
What did Rogers say about determinism and our Free will?
Although Rogers accepted some determinism, Rogers considered our freedom from deterministic psychological conditioning as equally true. He thought that a self-actualised person could overcome determinism with free will.
What did Rogers say about causation?
Rogers accepted causation, but argued that a person can still make free decisions.
From the perspective of Libertarianism/ Free will, what is the worth of human ideas of right, wrong, and moral value from normative ethics?
The idea that we have the freedom to choose how we act does not necessarily say anything about whether ideas of right and wrong from normative ethics are cognitively true/ worthwhile.
But Free Will does imply that normative ethics might be worthwhile.
How is the Free Will position different from the Determinist position in seeing the usefulness of ideas of right and wrong from normative ethics.
Whereas Determinism means that we have no choice to have acted in any other way than the way we acted so we cannot choose whether to follow a normative ethic, Free will means that we do have the ability to choose to follow a normative ethic. Whereas determinism makes normative ethics pointless, Free will doesn't.
What was Sartre's existentialist position on ideas about right and wrong?
As an existentialist atheist, Sartre dismissed the idea of divine moral laws and denied that there was any objective cognitive morality. He argued that we must make moral laws for ourselves: "There is no God so man must rely on his own fallible will and moral insight."
In what way did Sartre think ideas of right and wrong from normative ethics were not worthwhile/ useful?
For Sartre, rigid obedience to a normative ethical system could be seen as an example of bad faith. If a person obeys moral rules to the point where they feel they cannot act otherwise, they are deceiving themselves.
Just as the waiter in Sartre's analogy deceives himself into thinking he is determined by his role, people who rigidly believe and obey a normative ethic deceive themselves into thinking they are determined by these moral rules.
In what way did Sartre think ideas of right and wrong were worthwhile?
Sartre argued that ideas of right and wrong- even if they are not objectively true- are worthwhile for individuals to construct their own essence and become who they want to be.
Moreover, he also argued against oppression which stops people from making free choices.
What did Rogers say about the scientific position on ideas about right and wrong?
Rogers argues that science cannot measure or comment on the worth of human ideas about right and wrong.
How might Rogers' work be used to support the position that ideas of right and wrong are worthwhile?
Rogers work as a psychotherapist, with his ideas of about self-actualisation, aims for the fulfilment and happiness of the individual. If ideas about right and wrong from normative ethics make a person happy and mentally healthy in accordance with their ideal self, then these ideas are worthwhile.
What is the title of a 2022 paper that suggests that science can comment on the worth of human ideas about right and wrong?
'Moral people tend to be happier'
What did the 2022 paper 'Moral people tend to be happier' show about morality and happiness?
It showed how "those who are more moral in the eyes of others... generally experience a greater sense of subjective well-being and meaning in life."
How do the findings of the 2022 paper 'Moral people tend to be happier' suggest that human ideas about right and wrong are important and valuable?
Despite our ideas of right and wrong being social and psychological constructs, these ideas are still valuable to us as social creatures as we get a sense of fulfilment and meaning from them.
From the perspective of Libertarianism/ Free will, what is the value in blaming moral agents for immoral acts?
Because we are free to choose our actions, we can be rightly blamed for them.
How does the UK's legal system generally support the Libertarian idea that we are morally responsible and can therefore be rightly blamed for our actions?
UK legal courts accept 'rational choice theory'- that people are 'reasoning actors' who freely choose their actions when committing an illegal act.
What are the different ideas to be explored when considering the implications of Free will on religious belief?
1) God's omnipotence.
2) God's omnibenevolence.
3) The use of prayer.
4) The existence of miracles.
How does Free will impact God's omnipotence?
If humans are free to save themselves, we have power over God to determine our own fate- we can tell God whether to give us salvation or not. Augustine argued that this took away God's omnipotence.
What did Pelagius say to Augustine's objection that our ability to determine our own fate removes God's omnipotence?
For Pelagius, God has given us the freedom to choose to be saved and knows whether we will or not. Our having free will is part of God's plan and does not deny God's omnipotence.
How does Free Will adversely impact God's omnibenevolence?
If God knew that giving us free will would lead to the origin of sin and the existence of evil, why did he do it?
How does Free will positively impact God's omnibenevolence?
1) God gave humanity free will so it could become perfect in God's image. Free will suggests that God is not responsible for the origin of sin and upholds God's omnibenevolence.
2) Everyone has the free will to choose to be saved- God does not condemn people to damnation.
How does Pelagius combat the idea that God allowing sin and evil means he is not omnibenevolent?
Pelagius- like Irenaeus- believed that free will is necessary for humanity to become perfect and mature in the likeness of God. Evil and sin is necessary to develop humanity.
What did Pelagius say about the story of original sin with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?
Pelagius argued that the choice Adam and Eve made to disobey God was part of their journey gaining free will and maturing in the image of God.
Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, they did not know the difference between good and evil and therefore did not have free will. Only once God gave them a free choice to disobey him could they gain free will and mature in the image of God.
What did Arminius say about predestination being illogical in relation to God's benevolence?
Arminius noted that sin occurs when someone disobeys God. If God has predetermined that person to be sinful, then they have not disobeyed God and their behaviour is not actually sinful. God would be the sinner because he has caused the person to be sinful.
What Arminius quote shows his rejection of Calvin's God?
"God has not... prepared Eternal Death for any person."
What did Bertrand Russell say about a God that condemns some to damnation?
Russell said that such a God must be "a monster". "A God that punishes or rewards on the basis of God's own eternal decisions is unfair and immoral."
What did Arminius say about the implications of Calvinism on the use of prayer and sermons?
Arminius argued that there would be no real use for prayer or sermons if God has already predestined everyone's future. There is no point in praying for salvation or giving a sermon to try to save someone if God has already predestined us to salvation or damnation.
In what ways does Free will make the use of prayer irrelevant?
Prayer for the purpose of petitioning God to interfere with the natural course of events on earth is incompatible with the teachings of free will.
Swinburne says that free will requires total human responsibility- this means God cannot intervene.
In what ways does Free will not make the use of prayer irrelevant?
Prayer is meaningful for the individual as a secular practice, not in making God interfere in the world.
In what ways is prayer meaningful for the individual?
With Free will, prayer becomes meaningful to help us because we feel like we are
1) seeking God's guidance on the right moral path
2) seeking God's forgiveness for sin.
If Free will is true, how can prayer be used to seek God's forgiveness for sin?
Pelagius argued that God grants atonement through the sacrifice of Christ and we can seek forgiveness for our sins through prayer to help us achieve salvation.
If Free will is true, how can prayer be used to seek God's guidance on the right moral path?
Because our natures and fate are in our own hands, prayer is useful to us to seek God's guidance to help us choose the right path.
For Arminius, we can seek God's grace through prayer.
What does John Hick say about our free will in Irenaean-type theodicies?
In Irenaean-type theodicies, humans are at an epistemic distance from God- we are distant from God and are therefore more free to sin.
If God is at this distance, it is difficult to see the effectiveness of prayer.
What is a miracle?
A certain event, variously defined, although Hume's definition of a miracle as "a transgression of the laws of nature by volition of the Deity" is the most common understanding.
Why might the existence of miracles be questioned if predestination is accepted?
Some might question why God needs to perform miracles if he has already predestined everything from the moment of creation.
What are the implications of Free will on the existence of miracles as defined by Hume?
The idea of miracles conflicts with free will as God is determining as outcome through a miracle. This directly challenges the theory of free will where all events are free of determinism.
What did Arminius say about the adverse implications of Free will on miracles?
Arminius denied that miracles detract from our free will at all.
How are the implications of Free Will on the existence of miracles different if Holland's definition is used?
Taking Holland's definition of a miracle as an amazing coincidence, Free will does not contradict this from occuring.
In what ways can free will and predestination be reconciled?
Yes- Pelagius and Arminius- different understanding of predestination.
God predestined us to be free.
In what ways can free will and predestination not be reconciled?
No- not predestination like Augustine and Calvin mean.
