• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion Discuss

Extracts from this document...


"Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion" Discuss There is much debate that about whether we are free to make ethical decisions or that they are just illusions. Firstly philosophers have defined freedom as "The liberty of indifference is a genuine freedom to act according to independent choices that are not wholly determined by eternal constraints such as heredity, background and education" or as "The liberty of spontaneity is the freedom to act according to one's nature, the ability to do what one wishes to do although what they wish to do is determined by their nature which, in turn, is shaped by external constraints such as heredity, background and education". A group that would agree with the "our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion" are determinist. Determinism is the view that every event has a cause and so when applied to moral decisions; we do not have free will. All theories of Determinism is influenced by Isaac Newton's physics, according to which the universe is governed by immutable laws of nature such as motion and gravity. The world is seen as a mechanism dominated by the law of predictable cause and effect and therefore they agree we have no free will. In addition determinism can also be seen in some versions of Christian predestination which is the belief that God has decided who will be saved and who will not. The doctrine of predestination was formulated by such theologians as Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin. ...read more.


Therefore we in fact have freedom to make ethical choices. More modern versions of hard determinism point to our genetic heritage, social conditioning or subconscious influences as prior causes and therefore agree that we have no free will. An example of this is behaviourism. John Hospers gave the blueberry pie example, eg a man who eats a combination of foods eg a blueberry pie and that was the causation for murder. Psychological behaviourism was first discussed by John B Watson who suggested that behaviour can be predicted and controlled. By manipulating the environment people's behaviour can be altered. This idea is called conditioning and Ivan Pavlov, who conditioned dogs to salivate (dinner time) when they heard the sound of the bell. Operant conditioning is went we are not always conditioned by our environment but often use it to get what we want. Bf skinner claimed that behavioural science develops and psychologists learn to determine and control human behaviour. People cannot be blamed for their Moral behaviour if they had no freedom of choice and could of done nothing else. Bio behaviourism we can make a better person biologically, eg Muller - "make a person moral, eg through eugenics- "it is a genuine warmth of fellow feeling." All these ideas suggest that we have no freedom to make ethical choices and they are just illusions. Although Steven Pinker was a determinist, by looking at ideas of Darwin and Richard Dawkins such as emotions he developed a theory. ...read more.


We cannot know the future from contingent predictions. In conclusion, contingent truths may be fallible but libertarianists are justified in maintaining that our free-will is "beyond reasonable doubt." Finally soft determinism would have mixed reviews over "Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion". This is because Soft determinism says that some of our actions are determined but that we are morally responsible for actions. Soft determinists agree that all human actions are caused, since if they were not they would be unpredictable and random. Lastly Immanuel Kant, who believed that determinism applied to everything which was the object of knowledge, but not to acts of the will. Kant said we have pure and practical reason, pure is knowledge, the mind and practical is concern for actions, the will. Kant says freedom is a postulate of practical reason, he says that our own self awareness without, the world would not make sense to us, forces us the idea that we are free, so we cannot get rid of the idea we are free without seeing ourselves as the originator of our actions. In conclusion, although there is much debate from the hard determinists, libertarianists and soft determinists about is "Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion", I personally believe that the statement is wrong. I find that we do have freedom but I also think there is a cause and effect which may lead to influences in my choices but at the end of the day I am making my own choice and I feel we are free moral agents with the liberty to act and make ethical decisions using our own free will. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. "Religious Language is meaningless." Discuss.

    Because there is a direct connection between the two statements, God must have at least the minimum of whatever it takes to produce goodness in me. There is also an Analogy of Proportion, for example, there are different types of wisdom - Aristotle would have a different level of wisdom in comparison to David Beckham.

  2. We have consented to be governed so we are obliged to obey the government ...

    They also argue that education is compulsory therefore regardless if they have been schooled then they can still live how they want.

  1. 'It pays to be moral.' Discuss. (30)

    They do this for the preservation of their wealth, lives, liberty and well-being (and the same of their family). But Locke also said he could easily imagine the conditions in which the compact with government is destroyed, and that the men are justified in resisting the authority of a civil government (such as a king)

  2. We do not possess any genuine freedom to act ethically Discuss

    child, because if as a child you are brought up by your parents to believe stealing is okay, you will believe that you can do so and although according to your own moral code you would be acting ethically, this is not actually the case.

  1. we do not possess any genuine freedom to act ethically

    In other words, as opposed to the mechanical universe where everything thing follows from one event to another, here, events are completely random. The debate of whether we really do have the freedom to act ethically is still significant today.

  2. Ethical language is meaningless. Discuss.

    So whereas some statements do not need reason, moral judgements do, else they are arbitrary. Ayer does suggest that ethical statements are more than simply expressions of feeling, but that they have the intention to stimulate others to act in the way they feel is right.

  1. Conscience is innate. Discuss

    able to reason and distinguish between right and wrong and that there were two parts to making a good, moral decision. The Synderesis Rule is an innate ?right reason? that gives us knowledge of the basic principles of morality e.g.

  2. Implications of Predestination

    we were all predestined then Jesus coming had no impact and his suffering for the salvation of the world is being completely ignored.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work