If what we do is determined by biology and experience, then one could argue that morality is not a person’s responsibility. They have been born and raised a certain way and cannot overpower that, nor would they know where to begin. One flaw in this argument is that people get experience from multiple sources and they can choose which sources of information to utilize. The weight of these choices in your mind has to come from biology or experience though, because where else could it come from? People cannot separate themselves from their minds or their experience. This might lead one to believe that people cannot be considered responsible in a moral sense because they are making unavoidable choices. This might lead one to mean that we should not enforce moral choices, but people base choices on consequences. If murder is illegal, then people will do so much less because they will not want to face the consequences. People also need to experience the world as a moral place in order to learn to be moral. The experience towards morality needs to come from somewhere. Since society could change the way people act, as in morality, by teaching different methods and society is made up of people, then people must be able to change behavior. This might mean that society is a method to influence people in predictable ways and could be used to create people that act in a positive way. It could in turn work negatively and create a society with negative consequences.
This argument means that everything comes from a knowable source but we would not say that everything that comes from a source is caused. Just because a teacher assigns homework I do not have to do it but I might say that the reason I did it was because it was assigned. This would mean that every act can be justified but that does not make it lack free will.
If we choose to act in a certain way based on justifications that we may not be aware of does the lack of awareness prevent it from being called a free choice?
No comments:
Post a Comment