PHIL 1000-B Winter 2020 – Introductory Philosophy
FINAL
What is Galen Strawson’s position about free will and moral responsibility? How does he argue for
that position? Do you agree with him? Why?
If determinism is true, any occurrence or act may be explained by prior causes. According to
hard determinism, we do not have free will. As a result, we are not accountable for our actions. Soft
determinism, on the other hand, asserts that we have free will and we are accountable for our actions.
Then there's libertarianism, which holds that determinism is false but that we have free will and, while
other things are decided, we are not. Humans can cause without being forced to do so. We have the
ability to make decisions without being compelled to do so by any external power.
According to Galen Strawson, whether determinism is true or not, one is not morally
accountable for their actions. In his basic argument, he demonstrates this. Strawson contends that if one
is liable for their acts, they are also responsible for the way they are. There is some explanation that
someone makes a certain decision. However, one can not be held accountable for the way they are
because it is just the way they are. For example, a person may not have the ability to alter their
upbringing or their social and economic circumstances. Both of these factors contribute to the
uniqueness of the individual. As a result, no one person can be made responsible for anything.
Strawson's points about free will and moral obligation are persuasive to me. Many factors
influence a person's decision, including their attitudes, beliefs, and desires. Any of these aspects may be
within their influence. They can not, though, be absolutely in control. Another possibility is that one is so
in control that they will justify all of their decisions in advance. Thus, the sorts of factors that affect their
decisions and actions in the present are affected by events in the past.
If a person focuses on their decisions or deliberates on what they value or wish the most and
weighs all of the choices, the individual cannot really change that about themselves. As a result, if one is
unable to make such changes, they become a factor in their choice, about which they have little power.
Similarly, one's habits and physical abilities have a limit to what they can do. It If those factors are
leading to the decisions that one makes, they cannot entirely have control of their actions. It is
impossible to alter one's conduct by going back in time. It's profoundly ingrained in their way of thinking
and acting. A person can never really alter their current state of being. There are items that are set in
time. For instance, one did not have the option of choosing their family, history, or how they were born.
To summarise, moral responsibility should not be the primary concern in this situation.
Punishment, guilt, and humiliation are also common. There is, however, a certain path that can be
taken. Taking responsibility for one's decisions should be emphasised further. A person did not have the
option of choosing where they were born or the environment in which they grew up in. These external
factors continue to affect the person today, and this is how many decisions are taken. However, once
we take ownership of our decisions, we should confess to them. So, if a person makes a wrong decision,
society should see it as a cry for help rather than punishing or shaming them for their decisions. We can
see that a person is broken and needs fixing by rehabilitation. That way, they are encouraged to make
better decisions in their lives and they have a more positive environment to motivate them to do the
FINAL
What is Galen Strawson’s position about free will and moral responsibility? How does he argue for
that position? Do you agree with him? Why?
If determinism is true, any occurrence or act may be explained by prior causes. According to
hard determinism, we do not have free will. As a result, we are not accountable for our actions. Soft
determinism, on the other hand, asserts that we have free will and we are accountable for our actions.
Then there's libertarianism, which holds that determinism is false but that we have free will and, while
other things are decided, we are not. Humans can cause without being forced to do so. We have the
ability to make decisions without being compelled to do so by any external power.
According to Galen Strawson, whether determinism is true or not, one is not morally
accountable for their actions. In his basic argument, he demonstrates this. Strawson contends that if one
is liable for their acts, they are also responsible for the way they are. There is some explanation that
someone makes a certain decision. However, one can not be held accountable for the way they are
because it is just the way they are. For example, a person may not have the ability to alter their
upbringing or their social and economic circumstances. Both of these factors contribute to the
uniqueness of the individual. As a result, no one person can be made responsible for anything.
Strawson's points about free will and moral obligation are persuasive to me. Many factors
influence a person's decision, including their attitudes, beliefs, and desires. Any of these aspects may be
within their influence. They can not, though, be absolutely in control. Another possibility is that one is so
in control that they will justify all of their decisions in advance. Thus, the sorts of factors that affect their
decisions and actions in the present are affected by events in the past.
If a person focuses on their decisions or deliberates on what they value or wish the most and
weighs all of the choices, the individual cannot really change that about themselves. As a result, if one is
unable to make such changes, they become a factor in their choice, about which they have little power.
Similarly, one's habits and physical abilities have a limit to what they can do. It If those factors are
leading to the decisions that one makes, they cannot entirely have control of their actions. It is
impossible to alter one's conduct by going back in time. It's profoundly ingrained in their way of thinking
and acting. A person can never really alter their current state of being. There are items that are set in
time. For instance, one did not have the option of choosing their family, history, or how they were born.
To summarise, moral responsibility should not be the primary concern in this situation.
Punishment, guilt, and humiliation are also common. There is, however, a certain path that can be
taken. Taking responsibility for one's decisions should be emphasised further. A person did not have the
option of choosing where they were born or the environment in which they grew up in. These external
factors continue to affect the person today, and this is how many decisions are taken. However, once
we take ownership of our decisions, we should confess to them. So, if a person makes a wrong decision,
society should see it as a cry for help rather than punishing or shaming them for their decisions. We can
see that a person is broken and needs fixing by rehabilitation. That way, they are encouraged to make
better decisions in their lives and they have a more positive environment to motivate them to do the
