Reconstruct/Explain/Criticize an argument (PAPER2) - Essay Example

However, this is not in the case of Basic argument I. According to this argument, besides the deterministic being true or false, an individual is not fully morally responsible for their action. It entails various expressions that are: nothing can be caused by itself; for one to be truly morally responsible for his action one should at least convey a certain crucial mental respect, and nothing can be fully morally responsible. Therefore, Galen Strawson tries to explain a person’s action is mostly influenced by his character, his origin, his environment and cultural differences among others.

This can be true because freewill is the freedom free to do what you want not necessarily influenced by anyone or anything. Although one cannot depend entirely on freewill and moral responsibility as a consequence for one’s action. There are other factors that attribute to one’s action and an individual’s character plays a vital role. In this case, one must have concisely chosen to be the way they are. Moreover, we are also not morally responsible for character development. The concept of a character originates from a combination of qualities that differentiate an individual from another.

In other words, we were not born with characters instilled in us. Character is built from certain important aspects of life such as education, friends, parents, historical events, beliefs and genes. It affects reasoning about life and relation with other people. This is because character determines the values or ethics that we will be bound to in our daily lives. These ethics are honesty, responsibility, accountability, faithful, promise-keeping and kindness. They enable us to interact with the society by respecting their human rights and freedom. 2. Harry Frankfurt’s argument on compatibilist Free will According to Harry Frankfurt, one is fully morally responsible for the actions.

He notes that all parties about the compatibility of freewill and moral responsibility together with determinism have a common assumption that is ‘The principle of alternative possibilities’. It explains that a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if there was an otherwise. (Elliot) Therefore, Compatibilism is defined as one’s free will to exercise their control over their action necessary for moral responsibility. Beyond this, an individual is accountable for his or her moral significant conduct whereby they deserve praise, blame and punishment based on her action.

In addition, compatibilism holds two types of determinism: causal determinism where all effects have consequences; and logical determinism where future actions are already determined. According to hum, compatible freewill is determined by one’s decision based on the alternatives or options placed on the table. Although, critics of compatibilism is based on facts preceded by incompatibilism who believe that freewill is alternative possibilities for beliefs or actions that are genuine rather than counterfactual.

Compatibilism has been accused from creating a "quagmire of evasion", where the term freedom has been influenced negatively by underlying determinism (William, 1884). It is also denies the subjective capacity to evaluate the consequences of the intended action (Kant, 1949). Compatibilism may have support the value of freewill that can be misjudged by the society based on the consequences faced for the preferred alternative. 2. The argument