We don't possess any genuine freedom to act ethically. Discuss.
by
matthewjlongstaff (student)
"we don't possess any genuine freedom to act ethically?"
When speaking in the subject of ethical freedom, several schools of thought must be considered that of Hard determinism, soft determinism and libertarianism. When talking of genuine freedom, it means that no external force influences our decisions and we are totally autonomous in our decisions.
One argument that we don't possess any freedom in choosing ethically is that of hard determinism, hard determinism revolves around the theory that through environmental, social and genetic factors everything we do is already pre-determined by our nature. Hard determinists equate humans to highly complex clocks that preform as created, as in we are organic machines. Hard determinists reject free will. The key to this argument rests on the idea that holding a person morally responsible requires for them to make a choice between two, or more, truly possible alternatives. If choice is indeed impossible, then it would be incorrect to hold anyone morally responsible for his or her actions. If this argument holds, hard determinists are restricted to moral nihilism. Those who are also ethically naturalistic may also point out that there are good reasons to punish criminals: it is a chance to modify their behaviour, or their punishment can act as a deterrent for others who would otherwise act in the same manner. The hard determinist could even argue that this understanding of the true and various causes of a psychopath's behaviour, for instance, allow them to respond even more reasonably or compassionately. Hard determinists acknowledge that humans do, in some sense, 'choose', or deliberate – although in a way that obeys natural laws. For example, a hard determinist might see humans as a sort of thinking machines, but believe it is inaccurate to say they 'came to a decision' or 'chose' linking back to the basis of hard determinism that in essence things like our upbringing or genetics determines for us. Clarence Darrow was a supporter of this theory as evident in the Leopold and Loeb case in which two wealthy boys committed a most heinous murder and were identified as the murders, Darrow argued that the boys, whom had lived relatively care free want for nothing child hoods, we're blameless for their crime for it was a result of a determined path as the result of their upbringing which allowed the boys to escape death on mental health grounds.
