Freewill and Moral Responsibility in Response to Galen Strawson's Basic Argument (Essay Sample)

Name: Instructor: Course: Date:
Freewill and Moral Responsibility in Response to Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument
Introduction
The main argument that Galen Strawson puts forward attempts to find the truth in that no agent can fulfill the demands for real moral responsibility. Strawson’s argument assumes that if an agent is totally morally responsible for his or her actions, the agent also has to bear the responsibility of his or her reasons for doing those actions. In this regard, Strawson finds it impossible for an agent to be responsible for his or her reasons arguing that this action calls for an unending regress of totally responsible decisions for the agent to bear the responsibility of his or her reasons. The thesis statement governing this paper argues that, Galen Strawson’s basic argument is hardly persuasive to individuals who oppose that an individual’s reasons are the cause of the individual’s action. In this regard, there is a high possibility that an agent can avoid the infinite regress threat especially in situations where two similar choices seem to explain each other. The paper will introduce the basic argument by which that Galen Strawson stands. An argument that opposes Strawson’s argument will follow and the next section will object the arguments that oppose Strawson’s argument. A conclusion that restates the thesis and one that sums up the whole argument in the paper will conclude the paper.
Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument
Strawson argues that there is a moral responsibility and freewill is inexistent. Strawson claims that most issues that are debated by freewill are not to be resolved until there is proof of the non-existence moral responsibility and freewill. The first simple idea that Strawson’s argument relies on is that to act freely is acting in a manner that one can be said to be totally morally responsible for his or her action. The second simple idea that forms the foundation of Strawson’s argument is that, for a person to be truly morally responsible for his or her actions, a person must in turn prove to be truly responsible for the reasons that bring about the performance of that action. The rejection of freewill and moral responsibility by Strawson has roots from the second simple idea.
Opposing Strawson’s Basic Argument
Strawson’s basic argument is based on the notion that the reasons that an agent puts forward as his explanation for doing an action are the cause of the agent performing that action. Strawson’s causal assumption motivates his rejection of self-determined and morally responsible actions. A doubt cast over the causal efficacy of the reasons of the agent into performing an action deems Strawson’s argument as one that has been inefficiently supported.
The main reason for opposing Strawson’s argument is that it is only persuasive to people who believe that a person’s reasons cause a person’s actions. Strawson’s argument is based on a causal link between a person’s reasons and a person’s reasons. On this regard, one can argue that, the reasons are not to be regarded as causal. This argument loses the intuitive force upon which Strawson’s argument is founded. Indeterminism can be defined against the notion that reasons explanations presuppose the causality of reasons. In simpler terms, one can discredit Strawson’s reasons/actions determination (Strawson, 44). Reasons explanations capture motivation behind a person’s action, the end that the agents targets to satisfy by doing a particular action.
Objections
The theory only accommodates Libertarians
Libertarianism is main philosophical position that is related to freewill and determinism I the metaphysics domain. Libertarians argue that the free will is incompatible with determinism and that agents possess freewill rendering determinism as false. The libertarians are indeterminist based on the argument that agents have freewill. The papers main argument is equated to libertarian’s ideas where it hardly benefits compatibilists.
Another reason as to why the main arguments only accommodate libertarians i...