Analysis Of Your Move: The Maze Of Free Will
In “Your Move: The Maze of Free Will” Galen Strawson presents to us the Basic Argument that puts forth the fundamentally interesting idea that a person is not responsible for his or her actions. Strawson’s argument essentially states that; a person is responsible for what he or she does only if he or she is responsible for what he or she is. Furthermore, a person would only be logically responsible for what he or she is only if they did something in the past which caused them to be the way are. Therefore, a person can only be responsible for their actions if they were responsible for how they were when they made those actions. Since the points above are infallible, then we as people can not be morally responsible for our actions.
At its core, Galen's Basic Argument says that the validity of determinism is irrelevant because regardless of free will being true or not, human beings cannot ultimately or truly be morally responsible for their actions under any circumstance. Even if we were to look at the way in which we perceive and interpret events; indeed, we most definitely feel that we have the ability to make free choices. However, the choices we do make in all circumstances where we need to make choices are clearly the result of our character and judgment, and …show more content…
He needs extra premises that can demonstrate that whatever his conception of moral responsibility is, is indeed the most correct one. In conclusion, although Strawsons argument convincingly shows that we cannot be ultimately morally responsible for what we do because of our lack of control of many external factors. It remains simply a solid foundation for an unconventional and possibly ground-breaking philosophical approach to analyzing the age old phenomena of moral responsibility because of its inability to fully define what is morally right and what is morally
At its core, Galen's Basic Argument says that the validity of determinism is irrelevant because regardless of free will being true or not, human beings cannot ultimately or truly be morally responsible for their actions under any circumstance. Even if we were to look at the way in which we perceive and interpret events; indeed, we most definitely feel that we have the ability to make free choices. However, the choices we do make in all circumstances where we need to make choices are clearly the result of our character and judgment, and …show more content…
He needs extra premises that can demonstrate that whatever his conception of moral responsibility is, is indeed the most correct one. In conclusion, although Strawsons argument convincingly shows that we cannot be ultimately morally responsible for what we do because of our lack of control of many external factors. It remains simply a solid foundation for an unconventional and possibly ground-breaking philosophical approach to analyzing the age old phenomena of moral responsibility because of its inability to fully define what is morally right and what is morally