INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

OF THE HUMAN PERSON

OF THE HUMAN PERSON

PREPARED BY: ROSTUM ORLEANS ANDRADA

The human freedom and the human capability to reflect
about the circumstances of our existence are phenomenon
that have puzzled philosophers, anthropologists and other
scientists alike, since we can think.
WHAT IS FREEDOM?
• The human capacity to act (of not to act)
as we choose or prefer without any external
compulsion or restraint.
• It is an intrinsic and essential property of
the person
-rooted in our self determination
• Important indication of human freedom is
the ability to make choices and perform
actions. Our freedom to act sets us apart
from other beings.
We call people free who are not prevented from doing
what the want to do and conducting their life as they see
fit.
Political Freedom as The Enemy of a Good
Individual and A Good Society
In Plato's philosophy, humans are not equally well equipped in
terms of their mental capacity to make morally and practically
sound decisions. Plato starts with the assertion (that sounds
logical, even to modern thinkers) that every human being has a
specified talent and should therefore be assigned to a specific
job
This logically leads him to the conclusion that there can only be
certain people that are capable of ruling.
According to Plato's statement, not every citizen, but precisely
only those who are fit to ruling, are capable of leading the
society, and thus every individual, towards ―the good. But
what is the good?
 Plato argues that there is a fundamentally good principle in
the universe that gives sense and an order to life. He compares
it to the sun that sheds light on the world, making it possible to
see everything that is important.
Free Will as A Precondition to Philosophical
Thinking
Contrary to Plato, René Descartes does not see freedom as
the achievement of philosophers, but rather as the necessary
prerequisite to doing philosophy in the first place.
 For Descartes, the real question is not what is ―the good‖,
but rather whether we can possibly ever find out about it. In
order to find out, whether us hitherto accumulated knowledge
maps on to an external reality, Descartes starts by clearing his
head off any idea that could be false – he looks for a
foundation to build his philosophy on, by doubting every idea
that is not entirely self-evident
Freedom As the Need for A Thorough
Philosophical Inquiry
For Albert Camus, as for Plato, there are also two
different ways of interpreting human freedom: There is
the freedom that everybody has to choose between
options, to do/think/refuse/etc. one thing or another, and
then there is the ―Absurd freedom‖21, that is in his
view the only kind of true freedom.
What does he mean by that? By freedom, Camus obviously
(again) refers to the human capability of choosing between
options. But the word absurd has a surprising meaning here:
The absurd (or rather the absurdity of life) results from the
human need to find a meaning in life and the universe's
constant silence facing those human questions
The Social Contract Theory
One finds this thought even more profoundly and
emphatically stated, where Rousseau argues that
entrance into the civil state results in the
transformation of the human being ―from a stupid,
limited animal into an intelligent being and a man.
 Although in both passages, he still considers the
potential for abuse and corruption to be a significant
concern, the exit from the state of nature also
eventuates in the development of the human faculties
and the acquisition of moral liberty, ―which alone
makes man truly master of himself. For to be driven
by appetite alone is slavery, and obedience to the law
one has prescribed for oneself is liberty.
DETERMINISM:
UNDERMINING FREE
CHOICES
 Theory that all events, including moral choices, are
completely determined by previously existing causes.
Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will
because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they
do.
The theory holds that the universe is utterly rational
because complete knowledge of any given situation assures
that unerring knowledge of its future is also possible.
Types of determinism according to Philosophy Terms
(2016), are:

1. CAUSAL DETERMINISM or (Physical Determinism) which is

normally associated with two positions:
Nomological Determinism - the claim that all events are
caused by previous events according to rigid laws, such that
all events are, in a sense, inevitable.
Necessitarianism - that there are no real possibilities; the
world could only be as it is.
2. PREDETERMINISM is the idea that all events are pre-
determined, not merely by their immediate causes, but since
the beginning of time. This seems to be implied by causal
determinism, since whatever happened at the beginning of
time would determine the chain of cause and effect ever after.
3. FATALISM is the non-scientific version of
predeterminism, claiming that we all have unavoidable fates,
but not ones which are necessarily based on natural law,
allowing for other sources of fate, such as God.
4. THEOLOGICAL DETERMINISM this is the idea either
that God has determined our fates, or that God knows what
they are, which would also imply that they cannot be
changed.
5. ADEQUATE DETERMINISM is probably the operating
philosophy of most scientists today—the idea that although
quantum reality is partly non- deterministic, it is deterministic
enough, for all practical purposes, because the
unpredictability averages out at the human scale.
THE ACT OF MAKING A
CHOICE
Robert Nozick in his Philosophical Explanations, 1981,
sketched a view of how free will is possible, how without
causal determination of action a person could have acted
differently yet nevertheless does not act at random or
arbitrarily.
Making some choices feels like this. There are various reasons
for and against doing each of the alternative actions or courses
of action one is considering, and it seems and feels as if one
could do any one of them. In considering the reasons, mulling
them over, one arrives at a view of which reasons are more
important, which ones have more weight. One decides which
reasons to act on; or one may decide to act on none of them
but to seek instead a new alternative since none previously
considered was satisfactory.
Historians and anthropologists delineate how certain ideas
and considerations can be outside the purview of some
societies, some of whose reasons would not count as reasons
for us. (Yet, there does remain the question of whether an
innovator couldn't have recognized as a reason something
outside the purview of others in his society.)
Psychology, sociobiology, and the various social sciences, on
this view, will offer casual explanations of why something is
or is not a reason for a person (in a situation).
They will not always be able to explain why the reasons
get the precise weights they do. Compare the way art
historians treat style; not every style is equally available to
every artist in every period, yet within style creative choices
are made, and some artistic revolutions introduce new stylistic
possibilities.
Nozick also suggests the Theory of Values in the act of
giving weight:

➢Intrinsic value has traditionally been thought to lie at the heart of

ethics. Philosophers use a number of terms to refer to such value.
The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that
thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its
own right.”
➢Instrumental value the function and measure of intrinsic
that will lead to.

➢Originative value may be newly intrinsic values. Through

this third value, you may have all the three values including
originative. His or her actions can make a great change and
different valuable consequences.
 THE KEY TO ACCEPTING
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR YOUR LIFE IS TO ACCEPT THE
FACT THAT YOUR CHOICES,
EVERY ONE OF THEM, ARE LEADING
TO ENEXORABLY TO
EITHER SUCCESS OR FAILURE,
HOWEVER YOU DEFINE THOSE TERMS
-NEAL BOORTZ
Consequences and Prudence
in Human Freedom
ALL ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
 God confronted Eve, “What is this that you
have done?” (Genesis 3:13). He also confronted
Cain, “What have you done?” (Genesis 4:10). A
person is responsible for any directly willed act.
Also, an action can be indirectly voluntary (from
negligence or ignorance)
 A person is not responsible for an evil act if he
did not will it and did not intend it as a means to an
end. For example, a person might incur death while
trying to help another. A person is responsible if he
had not avoided the evil act (as a drunk driver
killing someone). As a general rule, all our actions
have consequences.
Consequences can be either good or bad. Problems
arise when we don’t think about or recognize the
consequences of our actions.
When you are not aware of the consequences of your
behavior, two things may happen. In the case where
consequences are negative, you run the risk of
repeating the same mistake. When you are pleased with
the consequences, you may also fail to duplicate the
behavior that gave you the desired results. In either
case, you will be frustrated.
 It's important to understand the consequences of your
actions. Many of the consequences you experience are
predictable. However, there may be some you didn’t
anticipate. They are part of your unending education.
 Unexpected consequences provide you with new
insights. Invaluable knowledge can be gained by
analyzing exactly what happened and why.
EXERCISE PRUDENCE IN
HUMAN FREEDOM
Prudence is the first of the cardinal virtues because it is
the ability to look at a concrete situation and know what
ought to be done. It is the ability to make right
judgments. Prudence gives us the knowledge of what
must be done when it must be done, and how it must be
done.
HOW PRUDENCE IN HUMAN
FREEDOM WORKS
 Prudence is the art of taking moral principles and
applying them to concrete situations. Let's take some
examples. We all know the maxim:
"Love your neighbor as yourself." This is a general
moral principle. But even after we learn this principle,
the question still remains,
"How do I love this neighbor, here and now?" We still
have to take the general moral principle and make it
concrete in particular situations.
Human beings prosper through cooperation.
Compulsion is not cooperation. People must be free to
cooperate. With freedom comes responsibility – to
accept the consequences of our choices, and to respect
and protect each other’s' freedom.
 Not everyone will respect that responsibility
voluntarily. Freedom without mutual responsibility is
the law of the jungle. The role of government is (with
the minimum of coercion, intrusion and cost) to define
and enforce the rules and responsibilities that
maximize freedom and cooperation.