In his book, Free Will, author Sam Harris argues that the premises of free will, [1] “that each of us could have behaved differently than we did in the past” and [2] “that we are the conscious source of most of our thoughts, [intensions] and actions in the present” are false. Harris begins his argument by explaining that free will is an illusion because it is not our own making. Harris explains that our thoughts and intentions are the product of our unconscious mind. The point of origin of volition appears to be spontaneous rather than traced to a point in mind. That is, thoughts and intentions appears in conscious as they are. Additionally, Harris states that the idea of free will is incoherent. He explains that there are two possible scenarios.
…show more content…
However, the worry is that Harris argues that moral responsibility is still possible. As mention, Harris wants judgement based on the overall complexion of the mind, and condemn those who consciously wants to do harm. For example, if a person contemplated and acted to kidnap and torture woman, then the person should be condemned. However, as Harris says, a person does not have control of one’s ideas, and that ideas simply come to conscious. Further, Harris also says that a person could not have acted otherwise as if he/she had done so, the action would have been decided unconsciously and simply comes to consciousness. For example, if a large man trips and falls over an old lady, the large man would not be held morally responsible as he had no control. For these reason, it is unjust to hold anyone responsible for actions that they have no control. As such, it will difficult to accept Harris’ argument for moral responsibility without free will.
In conclusion, Harris makes a compelling argument against free will based on our thoughts and action originating from unconsciousness to which we do not have control. While Harris does not think that we have free will, he argues that we can still be morally responsible. On the other hand, Dennett argues that we should be responsible as our unconsciousness still a part of us. However, Harris disagrees as we cannot claim responsibility based on body anatomy. Ultimately, it is difficult to accept responsibility for actions we do not
However, the worry is that Harris argues that moral responsibility is still possible. As mention, Harris wants judgement based on the overall complexion of the mind, and condemn those who consciously wants to do harm. For example, if a person contemplated and acted to kidnap and torture woman, then the person should be condemned. However, as Harris says, a person does not have control of one’s ideas, and that ideas simply come to conscious. Further, Harris also says that a person could not have acted otherwise as if he/she had done so, the action would have been decided unconsciously and simply comes to consciousness. For example, if a large man trips and falls over an old lady, the large man would not be held morally responsible as he had no control. For these reason, it is unjust to hold anyone responsible for actions that they have no control. As such, it will difficult to accept Harris’ argument for moral responsibility without free will.
In conclusion, Harris makes a compelling argument against free will based on our thoughts and action originating from unconsciousness to which we do not have control. While Harris does not think that we have free will, he argues that we can still be morally responsible. On the other hand, Dennett argues that we should be responsible as our unconsciousness still a part of us. However, Harris disagrees as we cannot claim responsibility based on body anatomy. Ultimately, it is difficult to accept responsibility for actions we do not