Understanding Freedom and Determinism in Philosophy
Freedom refers to the external appearance of the target action behavior. Freedom also refers to the internal subjective aspect: the deliberation and decision. In each of these senses, we must distinguish between freedom in a negative sense, equivalent to the absence of constraints, and freedom in a positive sense, equivalent to the faculty. A person is free in the external negative sense if there are no external constraints preventing them from carrying out an action. A person is free in a positive external sense if they have the power to make choices and do certain things. A person is free if they have positive internal options that allow them to deliberate, decide, or choose. A person is free in the internal negative sense if restrictions do not prevent them from deliberating and deciding. Freedom is a matter of degrees and relative to different aspects. The problem of freedom is the problem of reconciling freedom and determinism. Determinism is the theory that holds that all events in the universe have causes. The problem of freedom is: if determinism is true, then freedom and responsibility are illusory; but if they are not, then determinism is false. The conflict between freedom and determinism is known as inner freedom. Some authors argue against the idea that all events are caused in the universe: indeterminism.
Weak determinism (which does not consider the contradiction between determinism and free will) faces attacks from both sides. Some determinists and libertarians argue that we should make concessions to test whether determinism is true, and that actions should not only be explained by causes but also by the reasons of the agent. Others consider whether all events have causes that lead to decisions. Hard determinism (which considers all events in the universe to be caused) is based on the principle that not just coincidences but proven scientific laws govern events. Libertarianism (which asserts the existence of free will) faces objections; experiences may be incontrovertible, but this does not negate determinism. Just because we feel we can decide freely and experience no change in the causes of our decisions does not mean there are no causes.
Socratic Ideal: Socrates was a professional philosopher and an ordinary citizen who was guided by a great desire to question some of his values and practices. His insatiable desire for independence and intellectual lucidity always clashed with the topics of community, which were often filled with empty words, contradictory statements, and inconsistent arguments.
The Moral Intellectualism: Those who know what is right only act righteously. No one does evil knowingly; they only hurt themselves by ignoring what is right. Evil is ignorance.
The Moral Intellectualism: Those who know what is right only act righteously. No one does evil knowingly; they only hurt themselves by ignoring what is right. Evil is ignorance.
The Epicurean Ideal: Epicurus believed that pleasure was the highest good and should be prioritized in our lives. He stated that Greek hedonism is about achieving pleasure without permanent anxiety and avoiding pain, leading to a calm and happy spiritual life. Epicurus recommended applying rationality to the selection of pleasures.
The Stoic Ideal: The Stoics believed that the only good thing in life is virtue, which provides peace of mind and happiness. Accepting and living in accordance with the cosmic order makes us virtuous. If virtue is the only good, then the rest is either painful or indifferent. The wise person considers themselves a citizen of the world, not just of their homeland.
The Skeptical Ideal: Skepticism teaches that humans cannot know how things are in themselves, only how they appear to us through our sensory systems. Skepticism does not invite us to make judgments about how things are. This suspension of judgment leads to tranquility of the soul. Skeptics continue to recommend the customs and practices of the societies in which we live.
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that states that the fairness and morality of an action are justified based solely on its usefulness in producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. An action is morally right if and only if it produces a greater amount of happiness than any other alternative. The foundation of moral correctness in an action is based on its consequences. Characteristics: It identifies and prioritizes pleasure, is universalist, does not distinguish between good and bad actions, and considers each person’s happiness to have the same value. It aims to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people possible and is consequentialist, focusing on the outcomes of actions.
Pros and cons of utilitarianism: Positive: 1. It seems compelling that the moral correctness of an action depends on the benefits it brings to all affected individuals. 2. Utilitarianism provides a clear and simple criterion to justify our moral beliefs and decisions. Negative: 1. The calculation and comparison of overall happiness produced by various alternatives is an extremely difficult and complex task. 2. Its criticisms…