Can be held responsible for our actions, if we are not free?

?
  • Created by: mrahman
  • Created on: 17-05-17 14:06
View mindmap
  • If we are not free, can we be held responsible for our actions?
    • Against responsibility
      • 'ought implies can' Kant and other moral philosophers have argued there is a relationship between freedom and responsibility
        • if freedom is disproven then moral responsibility should go
        • is there any justification for holding people accountable?
      • John Calvin argued that everything has been predestined by God. Good acts only stem from God's grace which humans can't resist.
        • If a thief isn't prevented from stealing by God's grace can he held responsible since God's grace only comes from God's action
      • The law recognises diminished responsibility
        • Darrow used this line of reasoning to reduce Leopold and Loeb's sentence to life in prison and argue that they were not responsible
          • it was Nietzschean philosophy and genetics that compelled them to commit murder. Why just in one case?
    • For responsibility
      • Hume, freedom is the power of acting or not acting. So internal causation doesn't necessarily exclude responsibility.
        • People can held accountable if external causes doesn't determine their action
      • Richard Dawkins argues that we have a lust to be nice due to our selfish genes wanting to ensure survival
        • If we are designed to be moral, then why should we not hold responsible for those who are not moral?
      • if our actions are not caused then they must be random so then can we hold people responsible for random actions?
        • No, Kant arggued human actions are determined by reason which is part of the noumonal world which can avoid the dictates of the phenomenal world so people must be held responsible

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Ethics resources »