Conflict between Freedom and Determinism

Conflict between Freedom and Determinism Freedom, Determinism Responsibility Instructions Demonstrate an understanding of the underlying conflict between freedom and determinism and the various options for resolving that conflict. Demonstrate my own thinking about the problem, must show that I have made a determined effort to grapple with the problem. Essay is written for a cold audience; theyre smart, but they have no prior knowledge of what Im talking about. Try to organize your essay so that each part of it builds up a defence of your position. Introduction The idea that human beings exercise free will seems commonsensical; that is, we understand that when we act, we were capable of acting otherwise than we did. It may come as a surprise to hear that this is actually a hotly contested claim, and it has been subjected to philosophical scrutiny for thousands of years. The position that I will be defending is called hard determinism, a view that up until several months ago, I was blissfully unaware even existed. Hard determinism is the view that humans exist within the causal loop of the universe, that our actions are inextricably bound to the laws of nature. It proposes that human behaviour is caused by an individuals personality, desires and values, but that their personality, desires and values are caused by external antecedent factors over which the individual has no control. These factors can range anywhere from genetic predisposition to their upbringing to the cultural norms of the society they happened to be born in. In short, hard determinism rejects the notion of human agency. The objective of my paper is two-fold: 1) To make the argument that the thesis of determinism does not undermine our every day conceptualization of the will, but simply proposes an explanation for the cause of what we call moral behaviour. 2) To make the argument that the thesis of free will and moral responsibility does not cohere with the thesis of determinism; or in other words, to attack the compatibilist/soft-determinist view. Different interpretations of determinisms truth exist. So I guess here I would outline specifically what the different views of determinism are, just like that dudes paper LOL. I would identify mine and elaborate on the arguments. This definition admits a â€Å"will† or a desire-that-produces-action, but it admits no â€Å"free will† or free desire. Libertarians subscribe to the notion that human actions are uncaused and undetermined. They operate on the premise that humans are capable of originating acts, initiating a sequence of events, self-governing and thus we are independent of natural causal chains. Clearly formulate and explain the position you hold. In order to defend your position of hard determinism, I need to undermine their defence of freedom. Libertarians attack determinism by making a case for the exceptions theyre pointing to. Their only point of attack to make a case of their counter example; I need to prove their counter-example is not true. You can point to the sorts of suppositions that libertarians are making about human beings. Question the plausibility of those suppositions; the idea that were autonomous, the idea that we exist somehow outside of the causal loop. I also argue against the claim of human uniqueness held by Libertarian philosophers, so look at Chisholm and look at Lewis, who kind of touches on that. Libertarians argue that humans are capable of originating acts, initiating a sequence of events, self-governing and thus we are independent of natural causal chains. Libertarians maintain that freedom and moral responsibility are logically incompatible with determinism. They believe that for humans to be free, there must be some instances, fundamentally, human action, which are not the effects of causal antecedents. But if this were true, then the human will must be subject to a special kind of explanation. Libertarians seem to support partial determinism, which suggests a break in the ongoing process of cause and effect. For instance, history is not characterized by a linear progression, whereby one cause produces certain effects and so on ad infinitum. Instead, life can be described as a vast tree with an infinite number of branches, which divide into numerous possible directions. Yet, for human action to transcend causal determinism one of two possibilities must be fulfilled: i) events themselves must be uncaused and therefore random, or ii) particular events must be causi sui (the cause of itself). Refuting the compatibilist/soft-determinist poses more of a challenge, as they share common ground with a hard determinist. Outline the main points and objectives of my paper and establish which of the 3 classical positions I hold. In this case, it is hard determinism. As such, I seek to prove that the thesis of free will does not and cannot cohere with the thesis of determinism. I also argue that the thesis of determinism does not undermine our every day conceptualization of the â€Å"will,† it simply â€Å"proposes the source of what causes us to fall back on moral behaviour.† Then why do we act morally? Because it is evolutionarily useful for us to do so. Ruse says that true morality developed over time evolutionarily. Talk about monkeys nigga lol. Well see how that works out. For both of the following paragraphs, draw specific arguments from the readings, explain those arguments in my own words, critically assess the arguments and make clear why you accept or reject those arguments. Its harder to defend yourself against soft determinism. Give the main argument or arguments in its defence. State as clearly and forcefully as you can the main objections which would be raised by those holding the other positions. So here I can explain libertarianism and soft determinism. Rebut those objections. Libertarians argue that humans are capable of originating acts, initiating a sequence of events, self-governing and thus we are independent of natural causal chains. Libertarians maintain that freedom and moral responsibility are logically incompatible with determinism. They believe that for humans to be free, there must be some instances, fundamentally, human action, which are not the effects of causal antecedents. But if this were true, then the human will must be subject to a special kind of explanation. Libertarians seem to support partial determinism, which suggests a break in the ongoing process of cause and effect. For instance, history is not characterized by a linear progression, whereby one cause produces certain effects and so on ad infinitum. Instead, life can be described as a vast tree with an infinite number of branches, which divide into numerous possible directions. Yet, for human action to transcend causal determinism one of two possibilities must be fulfilled: i) events themselves must be uncaused and therefore random, or ii) particular events must be causi sui (the cause of itself). Human independence in the strong sense for our lives to be meaningful and important. How do you hold people morally responsible in a deterministic world? Focus on the deliberative process; theres no compulsion or constraint, then were freely deliberating and thus can be held morally responsible. Libertarians often worry about â€Å"objective worth.† Look at Kane in Fischer. Its true that all of our behaviour is causally determined. Look at Widerker and how he talks about how youd act if there was an announcement that the universe is deterministic. Would you feel like your life is meaningless? A third argument for incompatibilism was formulated by Carl Ginet in the 1960s and has received much attention in the modern literature. The simplified argument runs along these lines: if determinism is true, then we have no control over the events of the past that determined our present state and no control over the laws of nature. Since we can have no control over these matters, we also can have no control over the consequences of them. Since our present choices and acts, under determinism, are the necessary consequences of the past and the laws of nature, then we have no control over them and, hence, no free will. Opposition to determinism promotes that without belief in uncaused free will, humans will not have reason to behave ethically. Determinism, however, does not negate emotions and reason of a person, but simply proposes the source of what causes us to fall back on moral behavior. Anyone susceptible to immoral actions from the idea of determinism was susceptible before and does not hold strong moral judgment prior to the idea. Determinism implies the moral differences between two people are caused by hereditary predispositions and environmental effects and events. Simply because the cause of a persons morality (depending on the branch of determinism) is not entirely themselves, this does not mean determinists are against punishment of people who commit crimes: independent of moral judgement, punishment can still serve to modify a persons behaviour. Another point of view is that if determinism is true, and free will is not, then morality and ethics are meaningless concepts. Morality and ethics require that a choice can be made in order for these concepts to have any meaning. But if a person has no choice, in the case of a deterministic world with no free will, then it does not make sense to say whether individuals can make more (or less) ethical or moral choices, because there are no options available to them except the one they must deterministically follow. I will use the words determinism and causality interchangeably to mean approximately the same thing, with determinism referring to the more general state of the world and causality referring to more specific causal relationships. On the other hand, Sam has argued that morality can be studied scientifically. This would require operationally defining morality (Harris suggests a definition akin to a behaviors probability of maximizing human wellbeing but the definition itself is not the focus of his argument). Harris goes on to suggest that, given that human brains have certain properties, we could go on to identify objectively superior moral frameworks; that is, multiple optimized ethical systems may emerge that satisfy our definition of moral.

The Nurses Role in Child Maltreatment Prevention :: Child Abuse Prevention

Nurses who regularly see children in their practice are currently treating victims of child abuse, including sexual abuse and neglect, whether they know it or not. The causes of child abuse and neglect are complex and varied, and occur in all types of families and settings. Nurses must always remain alert to the possibility that abuse may be occurring in any family, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Nationally, in 1993, averages of 42.9 children per 1,000 were reported to authorities as victims of alleged abuse or neglect. A 1995 Gallop Poll of 1,000 parents yielded the estimate that 3 million U.S. children were victims of physical abuse by their parents, or about 44 per 1,000 children (The future of children, 1998). Child characteristics may include, the child was prematurely born, the child has disabilities, either mentally or physically, the child exhibits certain behaviors of infancy and childhood, such as persistent crying, the child is chronically ill, and the child has already been victimized. Family characteristics may include, there is other violence in the home, substances, including alcohol, are abused by the parents or caretakers, the parents of caretakers lack necessary maturity, skills or knowledge to care for the child, parental expectations are inconsistent with the child’s developmental abilities, the caretaker is socially isolated, the family is experiencing high levels of stress from events such as loss of a job, increased financial burdens, serious illness, death in the family, separation or divorce, adult members of the family have themselves been abused as children (Ohio State Medical Association, 1992). Definitions of the major forms of maltreatment are as follows: Physical Abuse- An act of commission by a caregiver that results or is likely to result in physical harm, including death of a child. Examples of physical abuse acts include kicking, biting, shaking, stabbing, or punching of a child. Sexual Abuse- An act of commission, including intrusion or penetration, molestation with genital contact, or other forms of sexual acts in which children are used to provide sexual gratification for the perpetrator. This type of abuse also includes acts such as sexual exploitation and child pornography. Neglect- An act of omission by a parent or caretaker that involves refusal or delay in providing health care, failure to provide basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, affection, and attention, inadequate supervision or abandonment. Emotional Abuse- An act of commission or omission that includes rejecting, isolating, terrorizing, ignoring, or corrupting a child.

British Literature of Victorian Era

Industrialism during the Victorian Period serves as the new beginning of the age. From a conservative era, industrialism played a significant role to the modernity and liberty of the period from the past civilizations; this transformation does not only affect the social, economic, and political aspects of the period but also its literature. Many writers, authors, and poets emerged during the industrialism that brought new light and path to the beginning and renovation of Victorian Period.Industrialism affects the Victorian Poetry as well as the novels of the era. Through poetry, the poets are capable in describing the lives and situations of the people in longer verses. Within the concept of Romantic poetry, industrialism develops a deeper perspective as it contains social change. Therefore, it can be said that industrialism opens the door of power and alteration to the traditional construction of literature specifically the Victorian Poetry. Matthew Armold is one of the most popular poets during the Victorian Period.His works described the transformation of European lifestyle from Romanticism to Industrialism. However, the concept of industrialism in Arnold’s poetry can be seen within the context of romantic drama. Some of these are â€Å"The Buried Life†, â€Å"Dover Beach†, and â€Å"The Scholar Gypsy. † Arnold’s â€Å"The Buried Life† is about the situations of the whole society. The narrator of the poem discusses the difference between men and women’s identity during the period where women are already part of the society.Women have better opportunities and status through the existence of different laws and policies imposed by the system. â€Å"I knew the mass of men conceal'd / Their thoughts, for fear that if reveal'd / They would by other men be met / With blank indifference, or with blame reproved; / I knew they lived and moved / Trick'd in disguises, alien to the rest / Of men, and alien to themselvesâ €“and yet / The same heart beats in every human breast! (Arnold, 16-23)† the poem describes hope for new beginning.The emotions within the poem show happiness with sort of questioning the new trend of the society. The construction of the poem is in the context of Romanticism but as the reader understands the point of the narrator, it will be seen that the poem symbolizes change that opens various transition from the conservative formation of the society to the liberal context. The basic example is the concept of ‘breast’ that shows different meanings and essence.Throughout the poem – whether a part of woman’s body, a depiction of femininity, womanhood, or motherhood, and also a descriptive word to described the transformation of woman’s status into the society. On the other way around, the â€Å"Dover Beach† described the flow of social change – like the sea, there is no assurance where it goes but it will take the calmness o f life while enduring the pain of thunderstorms and winds. The narrator shows the religious side of the poem where there is a concept of faith and destiny.The attack of the author within his poem is simple but spontaneous to the acquisition of knowledge from the environment and religion. â€Å"So various, so beautiful, so new, / Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, / Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; / And we are here as on a darkling plain / Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, / Where ignorant armies clash by night (Arnold, 32-37). † It also shows how religion transformed in a significant basis where it has its own way of defining the word ‘faith;’ through the discussion of radical journey of the narrator and his society.In the poem, the narrator discusses how happy he is to obtain new form of living. Though it is different from the common good, it gives new light to conquer the upcoming circumstances of life. Like â€Å"The B uried Life,† the â€Å"Dover Beach† is also constructed in romantic idea where there is love, happiness, and traditional style of passion but Arnold created the poem not to discuss its romantic essence because he wants to convey the impact of industrialism to the whole society of Victorian Period.The point of view of the poem is based on the concept of transition from one angle to another and also the emotions of the public towards it. The â€Å"Scholar Gypsy,† is about the new age of ideas and knowledge of the Victorian Peiord. The narrator discusses the new way of acquiring learning from the new formed society. Because industrialism demonstrates several changes like the English class structure, the poem discusses the manifestations of these changes to the academic institutions and the system as a whole.The poem literally described the life of a man who lived in a country side. In the beginning, his life is the usual depiction of human life – happy and co ntented in his simple being. However, he could not accept the social transformation that emerged in his environment and led him to escape from modernity to hide from the corners of the forest and live alone. He is not prepared with the transition that is why he could not learn the new idea of alteration from conservative to liberal society. â€Å"And then they land, and thou art seen no more./ Maidens who from the distant hamlets come / To dance around the Fyfield elm in May, / Oft through the darkening fields have seen thee roam, / Or cross a stile into the public way (Arnold, 80-85). † The poem discusses the new life of Victorian period in general. It shows how women work, how men live, how the system evolves, and how the society changed. This is a general viewing of the whole renovation where there are new policies and laws that will protect both men and women. Women could dance for joy while men became busier with their lives and careers.As a conclusion, the three poems h ave different attacks and perspectives on the issue of industrialism during the Victorian Period. Matthew Arnold described the different angles on how men and women of the society accepted the new lifestyle of the era. Some became happy but some also disappeared because of this renovation. In the beginning of industrialism, the Victorian Period made a success because of the different changes happened and nurtured the whole society but as it went through its end, these changes benefited some but not everyone in this period.The three poems showed how the industrialism affects the people or the whole nation. Through these verses, we could be able to understand what the people had experienced during those times. Works Cited Arnold, Matthew. â€Å"Scholar-Gipsy. † Bartleby. com 17 November 2008. http://www. bartleby. com/101/751. html Arnold, Matthew. â€Å"Dover Beach. † 17 November 2008. http://www. victorianweb. org/authors/arnold/writings/doverbeach. html Arnold, Matthe w. â€Å"The Buried Life. † 17 November 2008. http://www. victorianweb. org/authors/arnold/writings/buriedlife. html

Megatherium Giant Sloth Facts and Figures

Name: Megatherium (Greek for giant beast); pronounced meg-ah-THEE-ree-umHabitat: Woodlands of South AmericaHistorical Epoch: Pliocene-Modern (five million-10,000 years ago)Size and Weight: About 20 feet long and 2-3 tonsDiet: PlantsDistinguishing Characteristics: Large size; giant front claws; possible bipedal posture About Megatherium (the Giant Sloth) Megatherium is the poster genus for the giant megafauna mammals of the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs: this prehistoric sloth was as big as an elephant, about 20 feet long from head to tail and weighing in the neighborhood of two to three tons. Fortunately, for its fellow mammals, the Giant Sloth was restricted to South America, which was cut off from the earths other continents during most of the Cenozoic Era and thus bred its own particular assortment of plus-sized fauna (a bit like the bizarre marsupials of modern-day Australia). When the central American isthmus formed, about three million years ago, populations of Megatherium migrated to North America, eventually spawning giant-sized relatives like Megalonyx, the fossils of which were described in the late 18th century by the future U.S. President Thomas Jefferson. Giant sloths like Megatherium led much different lifestyles than their modern relatives. Judging by its huge, sharp claws, which measured almost a foot long, paleontologists believe Megatherium spent most of its time rearing up on its hind legs and ripping the leaves off trees, but it may also have been an opportunistic carnivore, slashing, killing and eating its fellow, slow-moving South American herbivores.  In this regard, Megatherium is an interesting case study in convergent evolution: if you ignore its thick coat of fur, this mammal was anatomically very similar to the tall, pot-bellied, razor-clawed breed of dinosaurs known as therizinosaurs (the most imposing genus of which was the huge, feathered Therizinosaurus), which went extinct about 60 million years earlier. Megatherium itself went extinct shortly after the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago, most likely from a combination of habitat loss and hunting by early Homo sapiens. As you might expect, Megatherium captured the imagination of the public just beginning to come to terms with the concept of giant extinct animals (much less the theory of evolution, which wasnt formally proposed, by Charles Darwin, until the mid-19th century). The first identified specimen of the Giant Sloth was discovered in Argentina in 1788, and definitively pegged as a sloth a few years later by the French naturalist Georges Cuvier (who at first thought Megatherium used its claws to climb trees, and then decided it burrowed underground instead!) Subsequent specimens were discovered over the next few decades in various other South American countries, including Chile, Bolivia, and Brazil, and were some of the worlds best-known and best-loved prehistoric animals until the start of the golden age of dinosaurs.