The essay will exhibit the manner in which human beings are both morally responsible as well as the fact that they possess free will in their actions. Notably, is responsible for the various acts he performs in case the person has the moment in which he can decide whether to act or cause the event in question to occur or not to occur. In other words, the individual has the full control of what to do or not to do and yet goes on to do what he does or cause the event he does cause (Chisholm 25). Also, morality can be said to be based on the availability of choices to make such that if a man is compelled into acting in a particular way and has no free will then there is no morality.
Exposition
Markedly, it can be argued that human beings are agents that are responsible because a man, for instance, has a choice to do something else in the time that he acts in a certain way or causes a particular event. For example, a man who steals from another is responsible for the stealing because the stealing that happens is entirely up to the person who did it at that time (Stace 120). Therefore, it can be noted that there is a moment when the man could have stolen from his fellow and at that same moment, the same man could have refrained from stealing from the fellow. The moment said shows that the man had a chance of doing another thing different from stealing. Hence, it is arguable that if an individual is responsible for a particular state of affair or event, like stealing, then that specific event or state of affair is a result of the man's act, and it was within his power to either execute the action or not to execute the deed (Chisholm 28). However, in case the performed action was within the performer's power not to execute, then no other event could have determined or caused it other than itself and within his power to within his power to make happen or seize from happening.
Notably, it can also be argued that human being is responsible and have the prerogative that when they act, it is considered to be a prime mover because the individual decides to act in that way and none or nothing pushes him to do the same. Therefore, in doing the things the person does, certain events are caused to happen, which otherwise would result from no other thing, and nothing or no one causes the person to act in that way (Schopenhauer 116). On the other hand, it can be argued that morality is based on what ought to and what ought not to be done; hence without free will, morality fails to be of existence. Further, the moral precepts would appear to be meaningless in case what human being did were through compulsion by another power, and it would also be senseless to say the man would make a different choice of action.
Discussion
The standard objection that exists that; an individual could have done otherwise, which is true; because the choice exists, then the person could have done otherwise. Both the two sentences are determinism-consistent. However, the argument would make no sense because if the man would have chosen to do otherwise, that is what he would have done and would not have done otherwise (Stace 125). In the example of the stealing man, in case he would have chosen not to steal, he would not have stolen, and he would have done no different thing from his act of not stealing. The third statement in the objection is; he could have chosen to do otherwise. The statement cannot be asserted because in case the person decided to do; otherwise, the individual could not have done otherwise such that if he were that he chose to do otherwise, then it would be for sure that he would have done otherwise. Therefore, this stratagem fails to work and the ascription of responsibility tends to conflict with a deterministic view of action widely.
The objection for the free will of human beings fails to hold waters because even the philosophers that stand to critic and object it only do so in these debates or classrooms. However, in their daily lives, they contradict themselves in accepting that there is free will (Chisholm 32). For example, a philosopher would ask his child the reason for making a wrong choice and punish the child in question; meaning that he acknowledges the free will the child has in choosing what kind of act to perform.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a man is responsible for the various acts he performs in case the person has the moment in which he can decide whether to act or cause the event in question to occur or not to occur. In other words, the individual has the full control of what to do or not to do and yet goes on to do what he does or cause the event he does cause. Besides, morality is based on what ought to and what ought not to be done; hence without free will, morality fails to be of existence. Further, the moral precepts would appear to be meaningless in case what human being did were through compulsion by another power, and it would also be senseless to say the man would make a different choice of action.
Works Cited
Roderick M. Chisholm. Human Freedom and the Self. (24-35)
W. T. Stace. Compatibilism. (119-127)
Arthur Schopenhauer. Essay on the freedom of the will. (115-119)
