Class Notes (839,551)
Canada (511,389)
Philosophy (439)
PHIL 201 (3)
Lecture

Philopsophy2.docx

43 Pages
261 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHIL 201
Professor
Emily J Carson

This preview shows pages 1,2,3,4. Sign up to view the full 43 pages of the document.
Description
Strawson - Freedom and Resentment January 16/18 1. The problem of free will Phenomenology of freedom Freedom and responsibility o free to form desires o freedom to act on desires the problem: determinism Phenomenology of freedom Choice between apple pie and sugar pie: lean to one side or the other the choice is yours you wonder what youll end up doing its open to you to decide after you make your choice, you think you could have made another Dont have to be in lecture. That is another choice. No mental or physical antecedents. We can always act against our desires. Freedom and Responsibility Having a free will sets us apart from animals, plants, machines, etc. We only ascribe blame to agents that have a will to ascribe freely. E.g.; we dont blame a car for breaking down. We dont blame someone for doing something while theyre hypnotized. If they are hypnotized they do not have the ability to form a desire and act upon it. The problem: Determinism People from a certain socioeconomic class are more likely to do a certain thing. The claim states they are determined to do what they do from antecedent conditions. It doesnt matter if its nature or nurture, Our choices are somewhat derived from antecedent conditions. The apple doesnt fall far from the tree. People are determined to act in the setting they were brought up in. The second and more general problem is that the picture of the world given to us by science represents the nature world. We are physical objects according to the scientific world. Everything we do and want is deterministically cause by some antecedent event. Thats the cause of determinism. Anything we do, we have this belief that we could have done otherwise. Argument for determinism: Premise 1: If determinism is true, then every human action is causally necessitated Premise 2: If every action is causally necessitated, no one could have acted otherwise Premise 3: One only ahs free will if one could have acted otherwise Premise 4: Determined is true Conclusion: No one has free will Descartes claim: We feel that we are free to form desires Options: Deny 4 th premise: Determinism is not true. nd Deny 2 premise: If every action is causally necessitated, no one could have acted otherwise. If I had chosen to have the apple pie instead of the other, I would have had it. We could have chosen otherwise. As long as I act in accordance in what I desire, I am free. Had I desired the sugar pie, I would have chosen it, so I am acting freely by choosing the apple pie. I choose to be in class, instead of playing hockey This says nothing about my cause for wanting to come to class. My cause could be completely deterministic but because I acted on my desire, I am free. 2. Strawsons approach 1. Pessimism vs. optimism 2. Reactive vs. objective attitudes 3. Considerations that remove feelings of resentment 4. Reactive attitudes and determinism 5. Strawson on freedom Our holding people responsible is somehow dependent on the truth or falsity of this assumption that we have free will. Detach the question of responsibility of the assumption. The pessimist holds that if determinism is true than the concepts of moral responsibly dont apply. We shouldnt hold people responsible if they werent free to do anything else. The optimist thinks that the truth of determinism will not underline out concept of moral obligation and responsibly We are free as long as there are no conditions that would make moral decisions unconstrained. Its compatible with determinism. We make responsibly we carve out a whole by redefining what it means to be free, and narrowing the scope. Why isnt the pessimist satisfied? Moral responsibly dont apply. Why freedom from compulsion would justify moral punishment, dissatisfaction. If the universe if such that they could not have done otherwise even if it looks outwardly like they did it, it doesnt seem fair. Out moral of concepts dont seem rationally justification. Looking for rational justification. The optimist tends to say that the practices justify their behavior. Not a good basis for punishment says the pessimist. Strawsons sympathies, sort of lie with the optimist, He wants to see if there is anything more that he can give the optimist to say that the pessimist says we cannot give up our moral practices. He sees some force in the pessimists complaint. He gives the optimist more material to convince the pessimist to not worry about our moral practices. He wants to do this in a different way. He wasnt to disconnect the issue of moral responsibility/practices from the theoretical metaphysical idea. Dissolving philosophical problems instead of solving them. He wants to focus on what its like to be involved in interpersonal relationships. He draws the distinction between are objective and reactive attitudes. We can take a reactive or objective stance towards people Reactive = resentment Someone knocks you over, you feel resentful towards them. We expect people to live up to certain standards of good will ad we react against them if they dont/ What if they pushed you by mistake, or to save you? The feelings of resentment you had originally will be diminished. They may turn to gratefulness. Their intentions are good, they didnt do it out of malice. If someone knocks you over to gain something for themselves the feeling will diminish slightly but its still a violation of good will, just not as much as if they knocked you over intentionally. If the agent is psychologically abnormal (depressed, child, etc) in those cases Strawson says we abandon the reactive stance to the person altogether in just about everything they do. There is a range of modifications we do In more and les in certain situations. In those cases we adopt the objective stance, we no longer feel resentment but we treat them as people that need to be trained as they are not full member of the moral community. They couldnt help it. We consider them to varying degrees outside the moral community. We see them as objects of social policy. We train them. We can rephrase the issue in terms of our new understanding of reactive attitudes Why should we think that acknowledging the truth of determinism should withdraw our reactive attitudes. If determinism is true, the pessimists claim that thats how we should treat everybody; we should abandon our reactive attitudes. It doesnt seem right to phrase people that are determined to do what they did.
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2,3,4 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit