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 extreme example that could make this simple to understand is a person’s eye color. The eye color is not something that person could have chosen, or predetermined. Eye color was a product of hereditary factors: something that we simply cannot decide for ourselves. That is pretty much how our initial CPM is created as well. The bits and pieces of what makes us who we are, is not simply something we necessarily decided, but is a product of our environment and external stimuli. We know that people have the ability to change in certain respects; inheriting a new hobby, values, preferences, beliefs and ideas. However, these did not naturally come about by a simple series of independent thoughts and that is also not the kind of true moral responsibility Strawson wants us to understand. Regardless, they are products of multiple external stimuli and situations. The way we think in certain mental respects is also comparable to eye color; we are not ultimately responsible for it and therefore cannot be truly morally responsible for our actions. Now, there are some groups of people that disagree with Strawson’s claims and find that humans indeed can be truly morally responsible for their actions despite not having control over original CPM. Those groups are known as Compatibilists and Libertarians, otherwise called Incompatibilists. Both groups can agree that free will plays an important role in human moral responsibility. The difference between the two groups lies with Libertarians and their rejection of causal determinism. Robert Kane, an incompatibilist-libertarian thinker argues that the world we live in isn’t already determined for us and that as humans and our free will allows us to be truly morally responsible. Libertarians do not believe in causal determinism, the belief that every occurrence necessitated by antecedent occurrences and conditions with the laws of nature. This piece of information is significant in the sense that I think Libertarians believe Strawson’s argument relies on it. Strawson however, believes that causal determinism is not exactly necessary for one’s CPM. Determinism can be sufficient in some senses for CPM, but again isn’t needed to make valid. The point that needs to have emphasis once again brought upon it is that our CPM was not based on the laws of nature in a deterministic sense, but by direct consequence of genes and environmental influences. I will now support Strawson’s basic argument and argue against the opposing claims made by Robert Kane. Kane believes that there is some vulnerability in Strawson’s claim that humans can …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 extreme example that could make this simple to understand is a person’s eye color. The eye color is not something that person could have chosen, or predetermined. Eye color was a product of hereditary factors: something that we simply cannot decide for ourselves. That is pretty much how our initial CPM is created as well. The bits and pieces of what makes us who we are, is not simply something we necessarily decided, but is a product of our environment and external stimuli. We know that people have the ability to change in certain respects; inheriting a new hobby, values, preferences, beliefs and ideas. However, these did not naturally come about by a simple series of independent thoughts and that is also not the kind of true moral responsibility Strawson wants us to understand. Regardless, they are products of multiple external stimuli and situations. The way we think in certain mental respects is also comparable to eye color; we are not ultimately responsible for it and therefore cannot be truly morally responsible for our actions. Now, there are some groups of people that disagree with Strawson’s claims and find that humans indeed can be truly morally responsible for their actions despite not having control over original CPM. Those groups are known as Compatibilists and Libertarians, otherwise called Incompatibilists. Both groups can agree that free will plays an important role in human moral responsibility. The difference between the two groups lies with Libertarians and their rejection of causal determinism. Robert Kane, an incompatibilist-libertarian thinker argues that the world we live in isn’t already determined for us and that as humans and our free will allows us to be truly morally responsible. Libertarians do not believe in causal determinism, the belief that every occurrence necessitated by antecedent occurrences and conditions with the laws of nature. This piece of information is significant in the sense that I think Libertarians believe Strawson’s argument relies on it. Strawson however, believes that causal determinism is not exactly necessary for one’s CPM. Determinism can be sufficient in some senses for CPM, but again isn’t needed to make valid. The point that needs to have emphasis once again brought upon it is that our CPM was not based on the laws of nature in a deterministic sense, but by direct consequence of genes and environmental influences. I will now support Strawson’s basic argument and argue against the opposing claims made by Robert Kane. Kane believes that there is some vulnerability in Strawson’s claim that humans can …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