You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Reconstruct/Explain/Criticize an argument (PAPER2)
Pages 4 (1004 words)
First Name, Last Name: Professor/Tutor: Course Title: Date of Submission: 1. Galen Strawson’s against having full responsibility for what we do? According to Galen Strawson’s view, individuals are not fully responsible of what they do. In this case, his attempt was to prove that there is no existence of freewill and moral responsibility.
However, this is not in the case of Basic argument I. According to this argument, besides the deterministic being true or false, an individual is not fully morally responsible for their action. It entails various expressions that are: nothing can be caused by itself; for one to be truly morally responsible for his action one should at least convey a certain crucial mental respect, and nothing can be fully morally responsible. Therefore, Galen Strawson tries to explain a person’s action is mostly influenced by his character, his origin, his environment and cultural differences among others. This can be true because freewill is the freedom free to do what you want not necessarily influenced by anyone or anything. Although one cannot depend entirely on freewill and moral responsibility as a consequence for one’s action. There are other factors that attribute to one’s action and an individual’s character plays a vital role. In this case, one must have concisely chosen to be the way they are. Moreover, we are also not morally responsible for character development. The concept of a character originates from a combination of qualities that differentiate an individual from another. In other words, we were not born with characters instilled in us. ...
Not exactly what you need?