The Compatibilist and Moral Responsibility - Research Paper Example

«The Compatibilist and Moral Responsibility» Philosophy is filled with many life concepts. The research delves on philosophy’s free will issues. The research delves on compatibilism. Compatibilism correctly states that we can act freely even if our actions are caused by forces over which we have no control. The United States is a democratic country. As such, the people can freely do whatever they want to do. However, the United States laws prohibit certain acts. For example, every person is free whatever he chooses to do. The individual can freely sing his heart out when he or she is happy. The same individual can also freely dance until he or she is too tired to continue dancing. However, the above person must comply with the United States laws to avoid causing discomfort among the other members of the community. The law prohibits the person from using a microphone to sing at a very loud boisterous level. The act would irritate the nearby apartment dwellers’ sleeping patterns. Singing at the top of one’s voice at 12:00 midnight may anger the next room dweller who needs the silence because her 8 month old baby is sound asleep. In terms of love, the same individual can freely court whoever he chooses. The same person is free to love someone from the African American race, Asian American race, and European American race. Same person can court a 40 year old woman or an 18 year old lady. Some confessed homosexuals freely enter into love relations with persons of the same sex. In fact, gay and lesbian marriages are allowed in some parts our United States. However, the individual cannot force the other person to accept the individual’s love overtures. The other person has the right to freely exercise one’s freedom to accept or reject the love overtures of the suitor or suitors. In terms of education, any person has the freedom to enroll in any school of one’s choice. The individual can prefer to enroll in Harvard Business School. One can enroll in London’s Metropolitan University. The same person can study in Washington .D.C. however, the preferred schools have the right to refuse certain student applicants. The schools can refuse entry to students who do not pass the school’s standard entrance exams. In terms of work, every individual has the right to apply for work. One can freely choose to apply for a vacant job in any United States government agency. Every person can freely submit one’s job application letter to the London air force. One can even apply for a job as bodyguard of the victorious Barack Obama. However, the company or Barack Obama has the freedom to accept or reject the job applicant’s application letter. The government allows the entry of Asian American immigrants to the United States. The United Kingdom can allow entry of immigration applicants from Germany. Canadian government can permit immigration applicants into its borders. However, the immigrants should comply with the destination country’s policies and laws, once the immigrants arrive at the destination country. Compatibilism focuses on reconciling freedom with responsibility. Some individuals abuse the term freedom. For example, the person has the freedom to do anything one wants to do. Consequently, the person interprets the concept as freedom to take prohibited drugs. Unwarranted freedom includes one’s demand to freely destroy the next door neighbor’s property. In order to pass a difficult subject, freedom should not mean that anyone can freely cheat during the exams. Such interpretation of compatibilism is misplaced (Velasquez 194). The government institutes laws to ensure peace and order thrives within the government’s territorial jurisdiction. The government requires all individuals and groups to comply with established rules, statutes, and other societal standards. However, the government freely gives each resident the right to act within the bounds of the government’s laws, rules, and statutes. This is the essence of Compatibilism. Philosophers have accepted this definition of compatibilism for many years (Arragon13). Another author defines compatibilism as free will itself. However, free will should be done in the context of responsibility. One is free to drive a car. However, the same person cannot steal a friend’s car in order exercise one’s will to drive. In the same manner, free will does not mean that one can freely insult an innocent stranger passing buy. If the stranger is irked by the person’s insults, the stranger may exercise his or her right to shoot the offending person. Free will has its limits. In same manner, many limits have their exceptions (Knobe 119). The contention that compatibilism proves that no one can freely do what he or she wants to do can be classified as the exception, not the rule. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, and John Stuart Mills espoused the word compatibilism. They seek to define freedom as real freedom. Free will should not be bounded by rules or statutes. Specifically, common sense morality dictates that one should comply with common sense responsibility. Compatibilism proponents seek to undermine the nature of determinism. Using the appropriate comprehension of causal determination, free will and moral responsibility, the compatibilist proposes that the tension will disappear being illusory, from the start (Lachs121). There are objections to the thesis statement. First, a person has the free will to do whatever he wants with his own property thus, no one should prevent the owner from burning his own home. However, the contention should not violate any of the established laws. For example, burning one’s home may precipitate to the burning of a neighbor’s home. The law prohibits burning because the rights of other individuals or groups may be abused. Hobbes specifically stated that free will that includes freedom to anything can literally mean the freedom violate established laws. One can freely kill persons, steal somebody’s property, or assassinate the United States president, and blow up Washington D.C.. with laws prohibiting such irresponsible free will acts, chaos will crop up, with the entire human race being reduced by death and destruction. Consequently, Hobbes states that everyone must obey moral laws while exercising their free will acts (Baumgold 27). Second, another opposing theory states that the person has the right to freely exercise one’s free will, without being held back. However, the state can exercise its authority to punish the law or statute violators. Allowing the individual to violate the state laws will cause chaos and disruption in the nation’s peace and order scheme. Empirist compatibilism dictates that the individual will be responsible for complying will the laws, in the exercise of their free will. Hegel, another Philosopher, refuses Kant’s interpretation or concept of compatibilism. This clearly shows that the free will has its limits (Wallace 82). Summarizing the above discussion, philosophy discusses the concepts of daily living. Each person has the free will to do whatever one pleases. However, everyone must be responsible for one’s acts or avoidance of required acts. Evidently, compatibilism correctly states that we can freely do whatever we prefer provided the acts do not violate the nations’ moral laws, statues other statutes. Works Cited Arragon, Raymond. Key Terms in Philosophy. New York: Continuum Press, 2010. Baumgold, D. Contract Theory in Historical Context. New York: Brill Press, 2010. Knobe, Joshua. Experimental Philosophy. New York: University Press, 2008. Lachs, John. American Philosophy. New York: Routledge Press, 2008. Velasquez, Manual. Philosophy: A Text with Readings. New York: Cengage Learning Press, 2010. Wallace, Robert. Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and Good. New York: University Press, 2005. Read More