Compare and contrast skinner and moore's different views - Essay Example

So experiment and observation, highly empirical they are, but would therefore make sense. It is only through doing these based on Skinner’s point that we could understand when a certain thing happens, another thing should follow. This means things we see now are results of something happen, so there must something happening before we see things as they are. This means further that an internal psychological state exists only then that we could exactly determine it, but based on Skinner’s claim we could be certain it certainly does exist.

Thus, Skinner is compelled to believe we have no free will, because there is “technology” of human behavior that controls us, and there are forces around us that cause us to create our choice or determine our behavior. Based on these, Skinner has two conflicting views: we have no control over our actions; we ought to behave in a certain way, which only implies we have choices to make, so at some point we are given the chance to control our actions. Determinism at this case seems to become incompatible with ethics, as Skinner believes forces around could either shape people as good or something else.

Moore’s soft determinism According to Moore’s point of view influenced by soft determinism, hard determinism of Skinner seems to be incompatible with ethics as it could be claimed people may not be held responsible for their actions. Moore believes that a person without free will has no moral obligations. So in Moore’s point of view, Skinner must be denying something intuitive. As Moore would want to point out, the word “could” only implies we really have choices to take. That is, an able person seeing somebody drowning could either save that person or not under certain circumstance.

For Moore it is morally right to save life, as this is what the moral society dictates. However, a person could also choose not to save someone else’s life and accept what the moral society will have to say as a result of such action. Here where Moore clearly wants to point out people have free will. Everyone “could” choose to do things, so we are left with choices. Analysis It is clear on the point of Skinner that external forces are the ones creating our choices. So Skinner is convinced there is no way we could have free will because forces around us have already predetermined our actions.

At this point, Moore’s claim that we have free will cannot be compatible with the idea that we could choose for ourselves choices to take as they are already predetermined. If Skinner’s point is right, much better than Moore’s, then the two of them might be arguing something that did not exist at all and significantly undetermined. We have therefore to note that Skinner and Moore are trying to believe in the premise that “everything always being caused,” which is the very idea of determinism.

This means everything we do is predetermined. Moore’s claim could therefore create a point if free will, based on Skinner’s point of view is something that exists and a strong influential force that could determine choices or actions of people. However, if free will is something that is also predetermined, then it could create certain actions, which according to Skinner must be predetermined as well. In this case, it is relevant and valid when Skinner would claim external forces