Philosophy: Free Will - Essay Example

Philosophy Number Task Philosophy Free will accrues when an individual or a creature controls his or her impulses, decisions, actions as well as thoughts. As such, an individual will only be responsible for their actions judging from the extent of free will. One should have the capacity, as well as the ability to decide what to do, when to do it, and how to do it in order to be fully responsible for every outcome of this action. Furthermore, the individual must have the free will to do these activities and not just do them merely as obeying orders of following command. In the event an individual acts due to the influence of actions of another individual, then the case changes in relation to where and how to place responsibility. In such a case, the individual becomes a determinist, whereby his thoughts and actions, as well as all his or her activities are as the result of another party. This is a case of Silenus, the Satyr, who appears as a determinist because he is a creation of Hench, a compatibilist. Silenus claims he has no responsibility for his actions because he has no free will to make any personal decisions. In fact, all his decisions and actions are due to the biochemical combination placed in his system by his creator, Hench. As such, he acts in accordance to what Hench intended him to be, such as a reproducer explaining his massive drive and desire for women and sex. On the other hand, Hench claims that Silenus is responsible for his own actions because he commits them knowingly and without any direction from Hench. The text presents Silenus, the Satyr, as a determinist who claims that he has no moral responsibility for his actions. In his arguments, Silenus confirms that there is universal or everything causation, as well as ansuceerial causation. In such a case, if something happens because of the influence induced by another person or another thing, then the event or activity is not free. This is the incompatibility principle, as causation and freedom are two mutually exclusive concepts. Therefore, the determinist argues that there is no free will, and consequently no responsibility. The actions that Silenus does in the story are all a creation of his maker, Mr. Hench. To begin with, Silenus has a string addiction to booze and women. He rarely stays sober if given an opportunity to drink. On the other hand, he rarely follows the instructions given to him by his master. As a result, Hench resorts to denying him food at times as a punishment for his misbehavior. Furthermore, Silenus has a strong sex drive, which he is unable to contain owing to the extra Y chromosome inserted in him by Mr. Hench so that he could perform the functions of reproduction effectively. A good example is the case when he was unable to control his sex drive and made an indecent approach towards the receptionist at Mr. Merton’s office. If he were a normal human being and in total control of his actions and decisions, then he would be aware that making up in public is an immoral act, and as such, restrain himself from forcing to have his way with the secretary. In fact, Hench blames him for not having any control for his actions after they rescue the receptionist from his forceful attempts. However, he denounces responsibility for his actions claiming that his overdrive for sex is because of Mr. Hench giving him an extra Y chromosome to guarantee his reproduction. This is a determinists’ approach to free will and as such, he claims not to have any form of responsibility to his actions. Consequently, for an individual to take responsibility for the actions they undertake, then they must do such actions and activities freely. The principle of incompatibility and free will demands that if something is free, then it cannot occur because of another thing, thereby making freedom and causation mutually exclusive. This makes universal causality false. It is imperative to note that truly Silenus is not morally responsible for his actions judging from such an argument. this is majorly because he did not have any choice of the chemical combination that Mr. Hench used to construct him, thereby has to obey and follow the whims and demands of the composition that his master deemed best to put in him. Therefore, being a weakling in the sense of sexual affiliations and booze are merely because of his chemical composition rather than his personal decisions. If he had had free will from the very start, he would have an opportunity to make significant contributions to what he wanted Mr. Hench to incorporate in his chemical composition, and as such, act in accordance to his free will. Therefore, all his actions and mistakes are the sole responsibility of his creator rather than his own mistakes (Brennan, 2012) On the other hand, Mr. Hench openly appears not to be a determinist from the beginning of the story but sometimes appears to be in complete agreement with the satyr. For instance, he blames Silenus for assaulting sexually Mr. Merton’s receptionist and questioning him whether he could not have significant control of himself. He expects Silenus to control his actions as well as hormonal impulses as a creation compatible with the human life and the new environment exposed to it. As such, he expected Silenus to adapt to the human environment and be compatible with all their morals and beliefs in order to blend in their world, forgetting that he was just an ordinary enhanced robotic creation. However, when Silenus throws back the moral responsibility of his actions to him, Mr. Hench feels partly responsible for the indecent acts of his creations, especially the harsh exchange of words in Mr. Merton’s office, which identified the creation as defiant to its master (Goldsworthy, 2001) Mr. Hench occupies a parallel position to both determinism and compatibilism. He believes in libertarianism, whereby an individual has the ability, as well as the liberty to free choose his actions and activities, as well as bear moral responsibility for their mistakes. As such, he partly feels responsible for the misdeeds committed by Silenus, but still expects him to try to be in control of his actions. This is because even though he had no choice about his chemical composition, he has the final decision and choice to act and behave in a certain manner, especially one that is decent and acceptable in the community. This is the main reason why Mr. Hench put Silenus through a forceful dieting program as a way of punishment so that he could learn and conform to the requirements of the modern world, and the moral upstanding as well as expectations of the human beings. However, Hench also agrees that for one to be truly free, his or her actions and activities should not be because of another being or something else. As such, free means not caused, or being able to do otherwise. According to Hench, the Satyr has no responsibility for what he is, and as such, should not bear responsibility for his wrong actions. However, he still maintains that the Satyr is partly responsible for what he does, even though he is not responsible for what he is. This statement is true because according to the compatibility principle, an individual can have both freedom and causation, and as such, these two concepts guide their actions and activities, as well as determining their sense of responsibilities. A further argument to this statement suggests that an individual is responsible for certain acts if their desire for such activities arouses despite their inability to control such desires, or in the event, they are not responsible for what they desire. This statement makes Silenus responsible for his actions despite not having any control for the cravings for sex and booze (Lemos, 2013) At the end of the story, Mr. Hench changes his mind about the moral responsibility of the Satyr for his actions. He is able to reconcile the fact that the satyr is not responsible for what he is, with the belief that the satyr is nevertheless responsible for what he does. He argues that the satyr is not responsible for what he is because he created him from his own imagination. As such, he did not consult the satyr of what form he wanted to be in, as well as what features and characteristics he wanted to possess. He had the features, characters; impulses and personality that he wanted him to have, such as the extra sex drive to enhance sexuality and reproduction. Therefore, the satyr is completely not responsible for what he is. However, the satyr is responsible for what he does because he has a mind of his own. He created the satyr so that he could take after the human and lead in their development programs, and as such, imparted with an independent mind free to make and take his own decisions. Therefore, every activity or action that they undertake is solely their responsibility as they have a choice to make on whether or not to do such activities or actions. In order to blend into the nature of humans, the satyr has to learn and behave like humans, which therefore demands that he be in total control of his hormones and impulses, as well as apply the necessary approach in getting what he desires. For instance, Mr. Hench does not oppose the Satyr to seek sexual gratification for his desires, he only wants him to seek such favors in a decent way and a private manner that does not bring shame to the public, or degrade their morality and character (Salles, 2005) Michael Gorr assists Hench in this regard following in the principles of compatibilism. Compatibilism provides an evident solution to the problem of free will, which concerns the incompatibility between determinism and free will. As such, the thesis of compatibilism holds that free will is compatible with determinism because free will is partly a necessary condition of moral responsibility, there by expressing compatibilism as the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism. therefore, even though the satyr has no regard as to what he is, which forms the essence of his determinism principle, it is imperative to note that he is responsible for what he does, which covers the compatibility concept. As a representation of the human being, he has to be compatible to their lifestyle and character, especially in the way they hold moral responsibility for their actions. These three schools of philosophy guide the behavior and characterization of every human being in their daily life endeavors. One makes a personal choice as to whether to follow the concepts of determinism, and not to bear any moral responsibility for his actions and activities, blaming his mistakes and misfortunes on others, such as his parents, his teachers, his peers, or the society. On the other hand, another individual may choose to be a determinist, who believes that an individual who lacks free will does not have any moral responsibility for his or her actions and activities. The person responsible for creating such an individual, for what he or she is, is the one, who should bear the sole responsibility for the immoral behaviors of the individual. This is especially concerning the lack of free will and freedom of choice. this could be a case of child brought up in poverty, which makes him hate poverty thereby developing in him a great desire for riches, making him vulnerable to do even the impossible in order to get rich, such as selling their souls to the devil in exchange for riches. However, the concept of compatibilism bridges the gap between the extremes of determinism and libertarianism. this concept allows for the accommodation of free will and freedom of choice of individual, such that even if individuals are not responsible for who they are, they are fully responsible for what they do, the actions and decisions that they take in their daily life activities. An individual should always bear moral responsibility for all their actions (Basinger & Basinger, 2009) References Basinger, D. & Basinger, R. (2009). Predestination & Free Will. Nottingham: Intervarsity Press. Brennan, J. (2012). Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs To Know? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldsworthy, C. (2001).The Satyr: An Account of the Life and Work, Death and Salvation of John Wilmot, Second Earl of Rochester. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Lemos, J. (2013). Freedom, Responsibility, and Determinism: A Philosophical Dialogue. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing. Salles, R. (2005). The Stoics on Determinism and Compatibilism. Farnham, Surrey, United Kingdom: Ashgate Pub. Read More