Argumentative Essay on Leob's and Leopold's Case
Freedom and Determinism
I strongly feel that Loeb and Leopold ought to be punished for the murder of 14-year-old Robert Franks. I believe that they hold full responsibility for their actions and crimes. I believe in compatibilism. However, I do not believe in the existence of the supernatural. Through agreeing with the first theory and disagreeing with the latter theory, Loeb and Leopold will be held responsible for their actions and would be morally punished.
Compatibilism, in other words, soft determinism is the “belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas and that it is possible to believe both theories without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be absent or present in situations.” Therefore as a compatibilist, I believe that despite determinism being true we still have the freedom to control our actions.
Therefore, this denotes that Loeb and Leopold had the liberty to choose to not commit the murder. Hence, I strongly disagree with Darrow’s argument. Darrow debated that, “What had this boy had to do with it? He was not his own father; he was not his own mother… All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is compelled to pay.” In this argument Darrow believes in determinism. Determinism is the “doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.” Though I agree with the fact that Loeb and Leopold could not control whom their parents were or the wealth that came to them I do not agree with the statement “he did not make himself”. It is the individuals’ choice and actions that determine him and no external forces do not ultimately predetermine it. If they do does this mean that Robert Franks was destined to be kidnapped and killed at the tender age of 14? I also believe that their wealth did not necessitate the murder that they committed. As mentioned before they had the
I strongly feel that Loeb and Leopold ought to be punished for the murder of 14-year-old Robert Franks. I believe that they hold full responsibility for their actions and crimes. I believe in compatibilism. However, I do not believe in the existence of the supernatural. Through agreeing with the first theory and disagreeing with the latter theory, Loeb and Leopold will be held responsible for their actions and would be morally punished.
Compatibilism, in other words, soft determinism is the “belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas and that it is possible to believe both theories without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be absent or present in situations.” Therefore as a compatibilist, I believe that despite determinism being true we still have the freedom to control our actions.
Therefore, this denotes that Loeb and Leopold had the liberty to choose to not commit the murder. Hence, I strongly disagree with Darrow’s argument. Darrow debated that, “What had this boy had to do with it? He was not his own father; he was not his own mother… All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is compelled to pay.” In this argument Darrow believes in determinism. Determinism is the “doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.” Though I agree with the fact that Loeb and Leopold could not control whom their parents were or the wealth that came to them I do not agree with the statement “he did not make himself”. It is the individuals’ choice and actions that determine him and no external forces do not ultimately predetermine it. If they do does this mean that Robert Franks was destined to be kidnapped and killed at the tender age of 14? I also believe that their wealth did not necessitate the murder that they committed. As mentioned before they had the