The Problem Of Determinism And Free Will

The Problem Of Determinism And Free Will I will be concerned with the problem of determinism and free will. In particular, I will be addressing Ayers argument that we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. Ayers argument can be summarised as: P1. All human actions are governed by causal laws, or they are not. P2. If they are, then they are necessary. P3. If they are not, then they must occur by chance. P4. If they occur by chance, we are not acting freely. C. We cannot act freely. (Ayer 1963, 255) I will argue that P2 and P3 are problematic as they do not acknowledge alternative positions on the subject. I will weaken his thesis by establishing the plausibility of compatibilism and libertarianism. I hold that we are morally responsible for our actions. In this paper, I will firstly adopt a compatibilist stance. Compatibilists hold that freedom is possible in a deterministic world. Adopting this conception of freedom will refute P2. I will secondly argue the plausibility of libertarianism. Libertarians believe that we are free agents and that the universe is not wholly deterministic. The issue of determinism and free will is important because it deals with the moral responsibility of our actions. Van Inwagen implied that free will will forever remain a metaphysical mystery (Van Inwagen 1998, 374). With this in mind, my endeavour will be a cautious one. I will not set out to prove anything; rather I will establish the possibilities of my theories. I will begin the discussion by introducing soft determinism. Subscribing to soft determinism will attack Ayers premise that determinism is not compatible with freedom. He assumes an incompatibilist stance by stating causal laws nullify freedom. An incompatibilist stance is one that asserts free will cannot exist in a deterministic world. I hold that by ignoring compatibilism, he has left P2 vulnerable. I will expose this by validating the possibility of compatibilism. This inquiry will be driven by Humes notion of soft determinism, as I believe it to be the most prominent compatibilist argument. Hume holds that freedom is possible in a deterministic world. He challenged his contemporary philosophers, believing they laid in a labyrinth of obscure sophistry (Hume 1748, 54). He believed part of the dispute stemmed from a common misunderstanding between determinists and libertarians. This could be resolved by marrying the two factions together. To be free, he argued, we require necessity (Hume, 66). A common view of liberty is the cessation of an act neither being caused nor necessitated. I find this grossly problematic. If an act is not determined, it is merely an act of randomness. By rejecting necessity, Libertarians are inflicting self-harm. If our actions were not determined, they could only have been derived from chance (Hume, 66). To Hume, this is a fatal flaw in libertarianism. While rejecting liberty, Hume also attacks hard determinism. He proposes that freedom should be defined as unimpeded actions that are guided by our desires. Even though our desires are determined, they are caused by our desires (Hume, 66). Acts are effects of will, thus we are morally responsible for willing the determined acts. This is contrary to Taylor (1963 43) who states that we should not be held responsible for our acts, as we could have willed differently. In short, we are free agents because we are free to act in the confines of determinism. If we grant Humes concept of freedom, P2 of Ayers argument can be rejected. The difficulty, however, is establishing how this weakened form of freedom permits moral responsibility. I will now critically assess criticisms to Humean compatibilism. Critics will contend that Humes conception of free will negates moral necessity. This view is widespread among incompatibilists (i.e. hard determinists and libertarians). They hold that freedom cannot suffice in a deterministic world. Granted determinism is true; our freedom is confined to a fate which we cannot avoid. We are free to act, but not to choose. For example, I fed my dog at 6:00pm tonight because of the antecedent variables that guided my decision at 6:00pm. What if, however, I asked myself at 6:00 my mind is telling me to feed the dog now, but I will deliberately feed her at 6:01, as to avoid making a determined choice? If I did that, it would have already been antecedently calculated into the determined variables in guiding my decision. Hard determinists also like to ascribe a logical precondition to determinism. If a past event showed Þ Ã ¢Ã¢â‚¬  Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ x, then Þ was always to be x (Aristotle Accessed 8/9/2010). This is like saying as I fed my dog at 6:00pm; I was always going to feed her at 6:00pm. This outcome was true tonight, just as it was true millennia ago or millennia from now. Looking back, granted determinism is true, was I still free even though it was logically impossible for me to feed her at different time? Hume would argue that the decision at 6:00pm was an act of the will, therefore I did have freedom. Conversely, it seems irresistible to attack the fact that I was inexplicably fated to act the way I did. Nonetheless, I hold that I acted freely at 6:00pm. I will argue that incompatibilists undermine the importance of freedom of actions. They do this by granting undeserved authority to freedom of choice. Freedoms of actions, I hold, are the main protagonists of free will. To establish this point I will go against the external constraint hypothesis found in many incompatibilist arguments. As Campbell puts it, a robot would not be held morally responsible for its actions (Campbell 1957, 158). To him, the robot analogy is analogous to humans if determinism is true. This is because he believes necessity eliminates moral responsibility, because like robots, would be programmed to follow our antecedental path. I constructed this common incompatibilist argument as: P1. Determinism is true P2. If P1, all outcomes are products of antecedental causes P3. If P2, there is no freedom of choices P4. For moral responsibility to exist there must be freedom of choices C. There is no moral responsibility if determinism is true While this argument seems plausible, I believe that it is ignorant. Moral responsibility does not require the freedom of choices. It is problematic to ascribe this precondition to free will. The term freedom of choice looks to be an appealing prerequisite for free will but it is really quite a mischievous term. This term negates necessity, as the causal function would be disproved. Without necessity, the only plausible output is chance. Compared with necessity, chance is a far less consistent foundation to build moral responsibility. With determinism, our actions are based on our willings. Without determinism, our actions are based on randomness. This is why I hold P4 to be fallacious. I stand with Hume in the view that determinism actually privileges freedom. Proving it plausible to reject Ayers argument on P2, I will now attack P3. Interestingly, the villains in this previous passage are now the heroes. I will be concerned with the arguments for liberty. Ayer states that if human actions are not causally determined, then they must occur by chance (P3). Libertarians contend this by arguing that the universe is not wholly deterministic, thus there is a margin for freedom to exist. The difficulty, however, is establishing how there is a mechanism of freedom which operates in this margin. As Ayer implies, outcomes can only be a product of either necessity or chance (Ayer, 255). If we reject this, we must find a different input altogether. This input must be plausible and a source of responsibility. Though this seems like a daunting task, some have heroically taken this path. Libertarians hold that the world is not wholly deterministic. They also believe that Þ did not have to x. It is not because of chance that Þ did not have to x, but because of an effort of the will. Campbell coined the term moral effort in establishing that Þ does not always x (Campbell, 164). These inner acts, which are needed to extrapolate moral effort, are based on first-person experiences. Furthermore, they are derived from conscious awareness. According to Campbell, some situations necessitate moral effort. For example, if I told my mother a lie about my whereabouts last Saturday night, this would constitute an act dictated by my inner self. This is because I am theoretical agent as I am a practical one (Campbell, 169). Taking this approach, however, is questionable. Campbell also claims we only need a small metaphysical niche to obtain free will. This claim is also open for scepticism. I will deal with these objections next. One possible criticism of Campbell is how he distinguishes practical beings from theoretical ones. Using my lying analogy, the determinist could reject this by stating that the antecedental conditions made me lie. There was no need for me to possess a theoretical cognitive capacity. The determinist would argue that the reflective sense-making can be explained via antecedental means. This objection, however, is taken from a third-person stance. Campbell could respond by claiming that my decision was an act of my inner self, and only I could comprehend the moral effort contained in the act. There is no evidence to support Campbell but there are also no grounds to refute him on through empirical means. When I told the lie, I was the sole author, and, according to Campbell, I am the sole reader too (Campbell, 159). His claim that free will can be verified by a metaphysical entity is also debatable. Even if we grant the existence of such a thing, how could it escape predetermination and c hance? And why should we exhort moral effort rather than withhold it? Campbell concedes that the nature of making choices is inexplicable (Campbell, 169). The mysterious nature that he ascribes to choice is quite useful. Although Campbells argument is far from imposable, it is quite tricky to dismiss entirely. Its resistance to scientific scrutiny is why it can be deemed plausible at the very least. This being said, P3 of Ayers argument is certainly disputable. In conclusion, it can be seen that P2 and P3 of Ayers argument are open to objection. We have observed that compatibilism contends Ayers premise that necessity diminishes freedom. From a Humean perspective, we saw that the concept of freewill was actually privileged by existence of necessity. This was because the view of freedom without necessity was seen to be unintelligible. By redefining freedom, we can see how free will can exist in a deterministic world. Contrary to popular belief, I argued that this revised concept of freedom was not undermined in any significant way. This is because freedom of choice is an overrated and problematic phenomenon. My second attack was on Ayers premise that necessity and chance are the only possible inputs for outcomes. Guided by Campbells view of libertarianism, I established the possibility of actions being guided by my inner consciousness. This inexplicable concept is embellished in a mysterious metaphysical nature, which is difficult to compreh end. While the determinist may contend that these inner acts are really forecasted acts, it is possible that I am also a theoretical being thus I evade the principles of physicality. While it has been observed that both my endeavours were conflicting one another, my aim was to undermine Ayers argument by any means necessary. If we grant the plausibility of these theories, we grant the plausibility of moral responsibility.

Servant Leadership :: Servant Leadership

The concept of servant leadership is one that many of today’s leaders struggle with, yet it is shown to be one of the more productive forms of leadership. The concept is really about the leader helping to grow their follower’s in a manner that involves empathy, listening skills, and compassion. Servant leadership is a way for leaders to connect with their teams and show that they understand the trials and tribulations that go along with the work. Think of an inverted pyramid. The leader is the point of the pyramid stabilizing the structure at its base. Servant leaders tend to create unique bonds with their team. This, in turn, makes them more productive than other leaders. As a result of the bond servant leaders are more in tune with the insights and necessary information that members of their team might possess or need to possess. While trying to ensure that their team members are successful, servant leaders become highly regarded and can benefit from this in the form of a more detailed understanding of the needs of their team for success. One consistent key to servant leadership is that information, knowledge, and opportunity needs to be passed along accordingly. Playing favorites is not a part of the equation in servant leadership. All team members are valued and information and assistance is doled out to everyone. There is no â€Å"Well I am a servant leader in this situation, but a power leader in others.† Servant Leadership is a mindset that should not have flexibility.

Gambling and Public Policies

A public policy is a deliberate preparation of action created and expected to direct and assist decision making in able to attain rational outcomes. The word â€Å"public policy† applies to different sectors of the society. This includes: government, the private sector, non-government organizations, groups and other individuals. Examples of public policies are taken from presidential executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order and other similar laws. Public policies are different from rules or laws.Laws can induce or prohibit behaviors while a policy merely guides actions on the way to those that are most likely to accomplish their desired outcomes. Public policies can be viewed and seen as political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms that are created and arranged to reach specific goals. Gambling Casting lots and playing board games have moved to online casinos, peer to peer gambling and sports gambling. What does a casino , a roulette wheel and other forms of gambling have in common? They all provide a huge chance of winning loads of money.This is because they are based on the principle of greed and sloth. Presently, our casino’s today marks a lot in history. The very idea that makes people gamble has been going on since the creation of men. (Higgins, 2006) This paper will focus on positive and negative effects of gambling, other forms of gambling like gambling on sports and finally after providing enough information about the different aspects of gambling as a whole and how public policies affect this. This paper will give a statement of whether gambling o sports in the USA should be legalized or not.Just like everything in this wretched world, I believe that gambling has its good side and bad side. There are a lot of positive benefits of gambling that a lot of persons are not even being aware of. It is always important to look at both this sides of the story before deciding whether or not ga mbling is a good idea or not. There will always be many negative effects of gambling on people and society. One of the most common positive features of gambling in sports is that many people enjoy the gambling as a sport and hobby. These people don’t have any problems with gambling at all. These are the positive sides of gambling issue.Gambling on sports provides a lot of money for community raising activities The argument clearly tells us that people who are having fun with gambling shouldn’t suffer just because other people are having a hard times controlling themselves. In my opinion, there are many positive and negative sides of gambling. All these effects include the effects of gambling on families. Spending all your money on gambling is one of the problems of gambling. This act will affect your family. They will have nothing to spend, nothing to eat, nothing drink, and nothing to pay bills and other stuff.Internet gambling only made the situation much worse. Gamb ling on the internet made a lot of people lose huge amounts of money because of its easy accessibility. However, all of the money which is spent on gambling is used to help a lot of people so this gives us another aspect about the story of gambling. Public Policies and Gambling Public policies greatly affect the gambling scene because they either promote or prohibit the gambling scene. Most of the time, state policies regarding gambling are in favor of the act. Most of them are having this â€Å"legalized gambling† policy.Discussing about legalized gambling will bring us to a point which we should evaluate our own knowledge on this matter. Doing legalized gambling is a very confusing act. One of the things that get often overlooked in the idea that gambling is wrong is the benefits of legalized gambling in sports. So many people say that gambling is wrong and they fail to notice that there are benefits of legalized gambling. (Ahlberg et al. , 2004) The benefits of legalized c asino gambling are that sometimes people are gambling for fun and for entertainment, and the money that they spend is then being used for good.People fail to notice these legalized gambling benefits, because sometimes the cost of legal gambling vs. benefits is something that is really hard for some people to discover. . Even though there are lots of people with gambling problems in sports, there are also lots of benefits of legalized gambling in sports. (Ghanimian et al. , 2006) If people with problems can seek help, then the benefits of legalized gambling can be shared by everyone. It is simply too hard for some people to see that there might be benefits to legalized gambling in sports, because it is true that lots of people’s lives have been destroyed by gambling.However, gambling in sports makes lots of money for the state, and this money goes to many different programs, some of which even help people who have gambling problems. There are simply a lot of benefits to weight before a decision is made. Conclusion Gambling in sports, obviously presents strong proof and confirmation that humans still possess the greed and sloth in their mind and body. Without thinking a lot about the consequences, many of today’s citizens still do a lot of gambling and spend a lot of money in â€Å"chance† games whether it is gambling related in sports, cockfighting, card games, or just a simple guessing game.Advertisements and attractive promos give way to the impending financial crisis of people and families who are affected by snakes of the gambling syndrome. No matter how many laws we the government creates to control or suppress it. It will always come out on top. Why? This is because it is human nature to desire for more and do it the risky way. Legalized gambling will make people realize that if they already lost everything then they only have themselves to blame. It is always the responsibility of each individual to take care of his/her own self.If y ou gamble a lot then you must be ready for the consequences. Everything in this world has its own limits. People who do not control themselves in gambling will really destroy their lives and families. Knowing when to stop and how to stop should always be in the minds of gamblers. Laws that ban gambling in certain areas only fuel the desires of gamblers to do more gambling. It is better to legalize gambling because it helps the economy. Individual problems of people who are addicted to gambling should not be the point of interest. We are responsible for ourselves and for own actions.Legalizing gambling around the world will generate a lot of money to help the needy and the poor people. It should be our principle that everything in excess is BAD. Self control is the answer to all gambling related problems, not laws or even bans stop the desire for gambling. It is SELF-CONTROL. Works Cited Ahlberg, P. E. and Clack, J. A. â€Å"Anti Gambling. † Natural ,410 (2004): 737–759 . Carroll, R. L. ,. Effects of Gambling, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1988. Daeschler, E. B. , and Shubin, Neil.. Casino Madness Chance Games, 391(1998):133. Daeschler, E. B. , Shubin, N. H. , and Jenkins, F. A. , Jr. â€Å"Double Digits.† Femme Royale, 410 (2002): 717–793. Shiraz Ghanimian and David Saryan. Money Talks. Summary. California State Convention 2006. Higgins, P.. â€Å"Casino Man: Case of the Relentless† 2006. 1 Mar 2006 Muller, G. B. â€Å"Economic Crisis† J. evol. biol. 10 (1997): 821-828. Patterson, R. Gamling Exposed. NY: Macmillan, 2007. Poctja and Springer. History of Gambling. The American Geographical Institute and The Paleontological Society, 2002. Poctja and Springer. Evolution of Men and their Crimes. The American Geographical Institute and The Paleontological Society, 2004. Lolo and Lola. Game On. The Journal of the American Casino, 2005.

A Presentation On Being An Atheist Mccloskey - 1509 Words

In the presentation on being an atheist McCloskey refers to arguments as proofs and implies that they can’t definitely establish the case for God, so therefore it should be abandoned. According to Foreman in the presentation approaching the question of God’s existence, he states that the best explanation for the existence and things we view of the universe is God. The approach that Foreman has is clearer to a person who believes that God created the heavens and the earth. McCloskey discusses three proofs the cosmological, teleological, and the argument from design he states that people are moved to a belief in God by what they take to be evidence of design and purpose. There are many arguments between atheist and theist on the approach of God’s existence, theist will always refer back to God creating the universe, being and intelligent perfect person. McCloskey in an atheist point of view believes that the world has no reason for believing in a being as God. According to Evans and Manis discussion of the non-temporal form of the argument the universe is necessary because God is the necessary cause of the existence of the universe, both now and for as long as the universe existed. God is the reason why there is a universe at all, regardless of whether the universe is young, old or infinitely old. A necessary being is the only kind of being whose existence requires no explanation which is stated by Evans and Manis as well as Foreman in the presentation approaching theShow MoreRelatedThe Necessary Proofs for the Belief in God Explained in â€Å"On Being an Athiest,† by H.J. McClosky1269 Words   |  6 PagesThe article â€Å"On Being an Athiest,† by H.J. McClosky, was very interesting. McClosky basically lets us know that as atheists they do not believe in God and why they do not believe in the God that theists do. According to McCloskey, there are three proofs for a theist to believe in God; the cosmological, teleological, and the argument from design. McCloskey refers to the arguments for God as proofs, and he suggests that we cannot establish a case with these, so called, proofs. After watching theRead MoreResponse Paper Instructions1075 Words   |  5 Pagescompleted the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist. This article titled â€Å"On Being an Atheist,† was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question. McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God’s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reasonRead MoreOn Being an Atheist, by H.J. McCloskey Essay1233 Words   |  5 PagesIn the article â€Å" On Being an Atheist,† H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a â€Å"much more comfortable belief† by eff ectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universeRead MoreAnalysis Of The Short Article On Being An Atheist 1714 Words   |  7 PagesProblem of Evil H. J. McCloskey is the author of the short article â€Å"On Being an Atheist†. He has also written many more books on the support of atheism. For this essay we will be looking at his article â€Å"On Being an Atheist†. In his article, McCloskey examines many Christian arguments for the existence of God. McCloskey not only says that Christians are wrong in using these arguments but he critically analyzes them from the view point of a devout atheist. While H. J. McCloskey gives his strong beliefsRead MoreSummary Of On Being An Atheist1341 Words   |  6 PagesFor many years theists and atheists have argued with one another over the existence of a creator, or God. H.J. McCloskey published his thoughts on the matter in a journal article in 1968 titled â€Å"On Being an Atheist†. In his article McCloskey aims to discredit cosmological and teleological arguments for a creator and he uses the existence of evil in the world as evidence that a divine creator cannot exist. McCloskey routinely refers to the cosmological and teleological arguments as believers’ â€Å"proof†Read MoreEssay about Response to an Athiest1362 Words   |  6 PagesResponse to an atheist 1. McCloskey refers to the arguments as â€Å"proofs† and often implies that they can’t definitively establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned. What would you say about this in light of my comments on the approaches to the arguments in the PointeCast presentation (Lesson 18)? 2. On the Cosmological Argument: McCloskey claims that the â€Å"mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing inRead MoreAtheism Is Not An Easy Belief3083 Words   |  13 Pagesspecifically when one is precarious of the other. Theists have some misunderstandings about atheism, but atheists have their specific misconceptions about theism. These two world understandings are two risky points-of-view regarding thoughts of God. Atheists do not trust that God exists, but theists believe in a God, who made the world and earth. In his article, â€Å"On Being an Atheist†, H.J. McCloskey tries to convince his listeners that Christianity is not an easy belief. He honors the three opinionsRead MoreAnalysis Of Mccloskey s On Being An Atheist1919 Words   |  8 PagesIn McCloskey’s (1968) article â€Å"On Being an Atheist†, the arguments for the existence of God are rebutted and some compelling reasons are given in order to enlighten some other atheists wh o might be struggling to defend their beliefs. Firstly, McCloskey (1968) opens his discussion by asserting that the three main proofs (teleological, cosmological, and argument from design) of God’s existence are not the basic nor the right proofs with which to arrive at a â€Å"vague† (p.51) conclusion that states theRead MoreThe Existence Of God And Theism2410 Words   |  10 Pagesof the universe or rather it happened through a big bang. H.J. McCloskey â€Å"on being an Atheist† argues throughout his article that theism is not a belief that is rational, but a is something that should not exist, just as God he believes does not. Throughout this paper will be the discussion of the Cosmological, teleological, design arguments, and how he refutes these arguments to invalidate the existence of God and theism. McCloskey throughout his article refers to cosmological, teleological, andRead MoreResponse Paper Mccloskey Article (278.205 Kb)2221 Words   |  9 PagesResponse Paper McCloskey Article (278.205 Kb) Having completed the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist.   This article, titled â€Å"On Being an Atheist,† was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question.   McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments