In my argument, I am going to support Strawson’s claims and argue against Libertarians that it is not possible to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions even with this idea of indeterminacy. Libertarians specifically believe that our free will allows us to have true moral responsibility.
In order to fully understand Strawson’s views and the views of those that counter him, we must revisit what his basic argument is. As human beings, we make specific choices and carry out actions the way we do because of our character or personality or motivational structures (CPM). In order for one to be considered as truly morally responsible (TMR) for one’s choices and actions, one must be truly morally responsible and have full control over their CPM. There is no possible way for one to ever have true moral responsibility for one’s CPM. Therefore, one can never be truly morally responsible for their actions.
Strawson expresses the different components of our overall CPM that we believe we are responsible for, but in actuality, it was given to us. An …show more content…
It is already evident that determinism rules out moral responsibility based on what was earlier stated in regards to not having control of our CPM because of hereditary and environmental factors. Kane believes in these ideas that the unpredictable feature or external stimuli in conjunction with our free will allow us to have control and this idea of moral responsibility. From what I gather determinism as well as indeterminism cannot be tested for validity. It is as easy to claim that a person’s character under Kane’s argument could have been constructed by a series of random events and by chance. That is something extremely difficult for any critical or even observational person to accept especially if one simply looked at the community they are surrounded
In order to fully understand Strawson’s views and the views of those that counter him, we must revisit what his basic argument is. As human beings, we make specific choices and carry out actions the way we do because of our character or personality or motivational structures (CPM). In order for one to be considered as truly morally responsible (TMR) for one’s choices and actions, one must be truly morally responsible and have full control over their CPM. There is no possible way for one to ever have true moral responsibility for one’s CPM. Therefore, one can never be truly morally responsible for their actions.
Strawson expresses the different components of our overall CPM that we believe we are responsible for, but in actuality, it was given to us. An …show more content…
It is already evident that determinism rules out moral responsibility based on what was earlier stated in regards to not having control of our CPM because of hereditary and environmental factors. Kane believes in these ideas that the unpredictable feature or external stimuli in conjunction with our free will allow us to have control and this idea of moral responsibility. From what I gather determinism as well as indeterminism cannot be tested for validity. It is as easy to claim that a person’s character under Kane’s argument could have been constructed by a series of random events and by chance. That is something extremely difficult for any critical or even observational person to accept especially if one simply looked at the community they are surrounded