NAME: Justine C.

Jayma BLOCK: BSA 1-2

MODULE 4 – FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

Freedom cannot be absolute, and no one can be truly free in an ad dualistic world
because we are bound by rules in reality. Furthermore, our bodies are not limitless; they
have limitations of their own. As a result, one thing we will never be able to completely
free ourselves from is our bodies. Then there's our personal experience, which we use
to form our perceptions of reality. The second aspect is what prevents us from truly
being free. And total freedom is meaningless because its worth has been eroded, and it
is still a part of everyone's utopia, despite the fact that it would produce chaos.
Furthermore, unfettered freedom would result in total chaos in a community. Too much
freedom can lead to indiscipline, while too little freedom might lead to violence. The
ethical concept of "ought implies can" states that we have a moral obligation to do
something only if it is possible to do it.
So, before we can do or fulfill something morally, we must first be able to do it. In a
technical sense. We must be capable of being better human beings if the moral law
asks us to be better human beings now. However, if we are unable to carry out a certain
activity, we do not have a moral obligation to do so. Because it states that everything is
actually determined, but we can still call an action free if the determination comes from
within ourselves, compatibilism is the most plausible of the three schools of thought on
moral responsibility. According to compatibilists, the action is determined in both cases;
that is, it cannot not happen; however, when an agent's action is self-determined or
determined by internal to herself causes, the action should be considered free. This
implies that we may bear moral responsibility for our actions because we are solely
responsible for some of them. We are still accountable if we continue to be determined
exclusively by internal considerations, because we did what we wanted to do, despite
the fact that we couldn't have done it any other way.
We are still accountable if we continue to be determined exclusively by internal
considerations, because we did what we wanted to do, despite the fact that we couldn't
have done it any other way. Both Thomas Nagel and Sam Harris feel that luck has a
part in moral decision-making. We must examine the possibility, according to Harris,
that everyone of us was dealt a radically different hand in life. While Thomas Nagel
introduces us to Moral Luck, a viewpoint on the relationship between luck and moral
culpability that acknowledges that no one can foretell the outcomes of their acts,
Both ideas agree that we have no control over where we came from, but that it has
an irrefutable impact on who we will become, and that we have little control over our
own actions since they are influenced by external variables rather than being entirely
under our control. Our choices are important, but the reality that we can't always make
them has far-reaching implications for our ideas of personal and moral responsibility.
Sam Harris' concept of free will has an impact on our sense of moral responsibility
because it states that we are not responsible for our actions because they are
influenced by these factors: our genome, parents, environment, ideas, and experiences,
resulting in a shift from moral responsibility to mere accountability, implying that we are
still responsible for our actions and must deal with the consequences.