The Possibility Of Moral Responsibility Galen Strawson Summary

In the ”Impossibility of Moral Responsibility”, Galen Strawson argues that we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions, as well as stating that free will does not exist. Strawson says that if one is not responsible for anything about themselves, how could they possibly be responsible for something that they did? He also says that when we engage in S-procedures, intentional shaping procedures, we only do it because of certain features of the way that we already are. In the very beginning of his article Strawson says that he is not looking to make it less obvious than it already is, he is just trying to give it the attention that he believes that it deserves. He also says that he believes that its validity speaks for itself. Strawson …show more content…
The second point being in order to be morally responsible for one's actions, one would have to have caused one's self--at least the mental qualities and dispositions. And lastly since nothing can be the cause of itself, one cannot be morally responsible for one's actions. One objection that people might disagree with Strawson’s theory might debate that a person can change who they are, which might make this theory controversial. My belief is that Strawson’s response would probably be that we may be able to change who we are, but that does not have anything to do with us changing our moral responsibility. He also states that maybe humans are unable to resist the idea that it is their capacity for fully self-conscious deliberation that makes them morally responsible for their actions. I believe that Strawson did make a compelling argument for his theory. Although, before reading his paper I did believe that we were morally responsible for our actions, I do see where he is coming from. His argument did not make me change my views only because what I believe is based on my religion. As a Catholic we believe that at birth God gave us free will, which gives us the opportunity to make our own decisions. The decisions that we choose to make lead to cones\quences, and in the Catholic faith those consequences can lead to either heaven or hell. This would lead me to reject his argument that …show more content…
Being biologically a human does not mean that we are a person, because that is not a condition of personhood. Frankfurt rejects both premises of Strawson's Basic ArgumentBeing a human is not even necessary in order to be considered a person. The philosophy behind personhood defines personhood as neither including all human organisms or excluding all humans as being labeled as persons. Harry Frankfurt believes that it is possible conceptually that some of the non-human species should be considered a person as well as certain human beings not be considered human. If being a human does not constitute personhood, then what does? According to Frankfurt one of the main components that he believes a person must have is that they must identify with their desires as well as having free will. When he says his he makes note of the fact that although human beings are not alone in having desires and motives it seems to be characteristic of humans that they are able to form second-order desires. A second-order desire is a desire to desire something else. According to Frankfurt, humans are the only creatures that appear “to have the capacity for reflective self-evaluation that is manifested in the formation of second-order