Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Free Will, Determinism And Moral Responsibility. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 7 page paper addresses the very complex question of: Can free will and moral responsibility coexist? Calling on such historical figures as Kant, Hobbes, Tolstoy, Spinoza, Hume and Locke, the writer define freedom of action and describes and defines the different models of determinism. The essay suggests that free will and moral responsibility can coexist even within one model of determinism. The writer also points out that Hume was a compatibilist, which follows the belief that there is no inconsistency between thinking that our actions are causally determined by factors outside our control, and thinking that we can be morally responsible and have free will. Bibliography lists 6 sources.
Page Count:
7 pages (~225 words per page)
File: MM12_PGfrwldt.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
principles for critical moralists, who perceive by its means that they must necessarily proceed by a rational method" (Rummel, 1975). The concept of free choice/free will is one that is
incredibly complex and confusing. Thinking about freedom, free choice, free will in combination with philosophies of determinism, predestination, etc. becomes confusing, to say the least. Philosophers through the ages have
attempted to reconcile free choice/free will with moral responsibility. Thus far, after thousands of years stretching back to the great Greek philosophers and perhaps even to the prophets in the
Old Testament, no one has satisfactorily been able to reach a firm and definitive conclusion about this issue and more specifically, how can free will and moral responsibility co-exist. Exactly
what is freedom and what is free will or free choice? Both Hobbes and Tolstoy suggested that humans are free "insofar as we may do as we wish without hindrance
or constraint" (Rummel, Chapter 30, 1975). This, however, addresses the freedom of doing something, not the freedom of choosing (Rummel, 1975). Any individuals will might not be free because of
the inhibitions, passions, complexes, heredity, environment and on and on (Rummel, 1975). There is a virtue to Hobbes and Tolstoys premise, however, and that is that it enables both freedom
and necessity to coexist; it favors an ethical reliance on moral deterrence without brining in moral responsibility (Rummel, 1975). While some may be satisfied with this definition, it really does
not consider the essence of the question (Rummel, 1975). Both Hume and Locke extended Hobbes freedom to act without restriction and added to that definition, "the power to do or
not do as one wills" (Rummel, Chapter 30, 1975). Using this addition, freedom then becomes an ability or power that is restricted to the person instead of the will of
...