scholarly journals Free Will and Human Responsibility. A Philosophical Argument

1912 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 471
Author(s):  
G. Campbell ◽  
Herman Harrell Horne
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Philosophical Argument ◽  
Human Responsibility

The Relativity of Free Will

Philosophy ◽  
1929 ◽  
Vol 4 (15) ◽  
pp. 325-331
Author(s):  
Herbert Samuel
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Political Action ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Human Responsibility ◽  
Individual Human

I was led to philosophy by politics. There can be no foundation for political action except in ethics; and there can be no foundation for ethics except in some form of metaphysics, whether religious or other. And one cannot travel very far along the philosophic road— particularly if one has in mind the need of arriving at some definite destination—without finding as an obstacle the perennial problem of Free Will. It is an obstacle which has somehow to be crossed. It cannot be evaded or ignored. The man who is dealing with public affairs—with the principles of Criminal Law, for example, or with the factors that make for peace or war, and indeed with any of the major questions that confront our society—if he tries to think things out, is faced constantly by the problem of individual human responsibility; just as the man of religion is faced by it constantly.

Free Will and Human Responsibility.

1912 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 332
Author(s):  
James B. Pratt ◽  
Herman Harrell Horne
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Human Responsibility

Free Will and Human Responsibility.

1912 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 481
Author(s):  
H. W. Wright ◽  
H. H. Horne
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Human Responsibility

Neuroscience

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adina L. Roskies
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Mental Representation ◽  
Brain Structure ◽  
Moral Theory ◽  
Structure And Function ◽  
Philosophical Argument ◽  
Brain Structure And Function ◽  
Mind And Brain ◽  
And Function ◽  
Philosophical Questions

This article examines whether, and in what ways, neuroscience can illuminate those questions associated with neurophilosophy. It begins by discussing the relation between philosophy and neuroscience, in particular how they can each influence each other. It then considers how neuroscience can illuminate philosophical questions about mind, including metaphysical questions about the relation of mind and brain, questions about the nature of mental representation and content, consciousness, and even moral theory. It also looks at some of the most prevalent techniques employed by neuroscience for investigating brain structure and function; how neuroscience provides potential counterexamples to philosophical claims, by showing how brains work and suggests new interpretations of data; and the influence of neuroscience on philosophy in the area of normativity. The article concludes by examining attempts to use neuroscience to inform philosophical argument about free will.

scholarly journals Perbandingan Konsep Teodise John Calvin dan C. S. Lewis serta Relevansinya terhadap Sikap Fatalistik dalam Menghadapi Covid-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-175
Author(s):  
Thio Christian Sulistio ◽  
Esther Gunawan
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
John Calvin ◽  
Literature Research ◽  
Making Choices ◽  
God's Word ◽  
The World ◽  
Theological Fatalism ◽  
Human Responsibility ◽  
The Right

Abstract. The world is currently enduring an epidemic of COVID-19 which causes suffering and pain. Facing the COVID-19 pandemic, Indonesian people have shown various responses. One pupular respond is theological fatalism, which believe that God has determined everything so that human efforts and actions are not necessary. In connection to this, the question arouse whether Christian theology, especially Christian theodicy, which was represented in this paper by John Calvin and C. S. Lewis, fell into fatalism? To answer this question, the writer would compare of the two theodicies by using a literature research. Through this research, it was concluded that neither John Calvin's theodicy nor C. S Lewis's had fallen into theological fatalism. Both emphasized free will and human responsibility in making choices and actions. The right attitude is to submit to the authority of God's word which commands us to act by doing good to others who are suffering and sick.Abstrak. Dunia saat ini sedang dilanda wabah penyakit COVID-19 yang menyebabkan penderitaan dan kesakitan. Berhadapan dengan pandemi COVID-19, manusia Indonesia menunjukkan berbagai respon. Salah satu yang umum adalah fatalisme teologis yakni kepercayaan bahwa Allah sudah menetapkan segala sesuatu sehingga usaha dan perbuatan manusia tidak membuat perbedaan dan dampak di dalam sejarah kehidupan. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut muncul pertanyaan apakah teologi Kristen, khususnya teodise Kristen, yang diwakili di dalam paper ini oleh John Calvin dan C. S. Lewis jatuh ke dalam fatalisme? Untuk menjawab pertanyaan tersebut penulis akan membandingkan kedua teodise tersebut dengan menggunakan studi pustaka. Melalui penelitian tersebut disimpulkan bahwa baik teodise John Calvin maupun C. S Lewis tidak jatuh ke dalam fatalisme teologis. Kedua-duanya sama-sama menekankan kehendak bebas dan tanggung jawab manusia di dalam melakukan pilihan dan tindakan. Sikap yang tepat adalah tunduk kepada otoritas firman Tuhan yang memerintahkan kita untuk bertindak dengan berbuat baik kepada sesama yang menderita dan sakit.

Experience and the Argument Against Human Freedom

Metaphysica ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
David K. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Agency Theory ◽  
Human Freedom ◽  
Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
A Posteriori ◽  
Libertarian Freedom ◽  
Human Responsibility ◽  
Relevant Notion

AbstractThe heart of this essay, presented in part II, is an attempt to break the longstanding gridlock of the determinism/free-will controversy. Part I sets the table by examining recent attempts to refine and resolve this controversy. For example, Fischer’s groundbreaking case for semi-compatibilism seeks to soften the devastating impact of incompatibilism by arguing that while metaphysical (libertarian) freedom is indeed incompatible with determinism, human responsibility is not. But Fischer’s ingenious application of Frankfort-like examples simply cannot rescue any relevant notion of human responsibility. Rather, Fischer’s resourceful argumentation guides us to a pivotal realization. Kane’s Principle of Alternative Possibilities (the longstanding “could have done otherwise” necessary condition for human freedom aka Fischer’s “Leeway Principle”) is false. Thus, any successful attack against metaphysical freedom must target the “source-hood” thesis – an indeterministic agency theory of metaphysical freedom – the very idea of which is rejected by Hume, Nietzsche, Fischer et al as simply incoherent. But I argue that these philosophers are surely mistaken about the literal incoherence of the source-hood premise. Consequently, the current debate cannot move us beyond the frustration faced so squarely by Kant: we just can’t find a way to advance the case for or against metaphysical freedom. In Part II, I urge that an appeal to the a posteriori data of experience is sufficient to decisively resolve this recalcitrant impasse. This a posteriori evidence I argue, reveals that the thesis of metaphysical freedom is surely false. There is no human freedom; and neither are humans morally responsible for their choices. The supportive case supplied here will seek to rehabilitate Schopenhauer’s proclamation that while “man can do what he wants, he cannot will what he wants.”

On Determinism and Human Responsibility

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S Gazzaniga
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Left Brain ◽  
The Social ◽  
Genetic Mechanisms ◽  
Human Responsibility ◽  
The Brain ◽  
The Way

In Chapter 12, Michael Gazzaniga tells us: “We are . . . animals with brains that carry out every . . . action automatically and outside our ability to describe how it works . . .. a soup of dispositions controlled by genetic mechanisms, some weakly and some strongly expressed.” He also tells us: “We humans have something called the interpreter, located in our left brain, that weaves a story about why we feel and act the way we do.” Gazzaniga explores the concepts of free will and moral responsibility in light of such facts, arguing that we all remain personally responsible for our actions because responsibility arises out of each person’s interaction with the social layer she is embedded in. “Responsibility is not to be found in the brain,” he concludes, rather it is “a needed consequence of more than one individual interacting with another.”

Sophocles’ OedipustheKing

2020 ◽  
pp. 139-162
Author(s):  
Jon Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
Scientific Revolution ◽  
Religious Traditions ◽  
Greek Culture ◽  
The World ◽  
Human World ◽  
Human Responsibility

After a brief introduction to the life and work of the Greek dramatist Sophocles, Chapter 5 interprets Oedipus the King as a critical story of the human search for knowledge. Oedipus is known for his intelligence as is exemplified by his ability to defeat the Sphinx by figuring out the answer to its riddle. The tragedy also portrays the idea of natural law as an extension of the world of nature. In the play natural law is portrayed in terms of the laws prohibiting patricide and incest, which are regarded not just as violations of the human world but rather of nature itself. This picture is set against the threat of relativism and subjectivism that was starting to arise in Greek culture. The story also illuminates the Greek concept of fate, to which Oedipus falls victim, although he at every step tries to avoid it. This raises difficult questions about human responsibility, culpability, and free will. Sophocles’ tragedy is read as a criticism of the Greek scientific revolution and the Socratic spirit which puts value on learning new things based on reason instead of relying on the ancient customs and religious traditions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document