Responsibility
PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York, Shelter Harbour Press.
Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers
Cited
Some people believe that humans are trapped within a causal nexus that leaves no place the concepts of freedom, choice and responsibility. In their view, all our actions are determined by past circumstances, and this leaves no room for freedom. (150).
In other words, some believe in hard determinism.
Hard determinism/Determinism
W.T. Stace (1952)(1976) explains if human actions are uncaused then reward or punishment would be unjustified. Stace (1952)(1976: 29). Stace reasons that there must be at least some human cause within human actions to make them morally responsible acts. Stace (1952)(1976: 30).
Simon Blackburn comments that this is the doctrine that human action has no influence on events. Blackburn (1996: 137). Blackburn gives the opinion that fatalism is wrongly confused with determinism, which by itself carries no implications that human actions have no effect. Blackburn (1996: 137).
Tomis Kapitan notes that determinism is usually understood as meaning that whatever occurs is determined by antecedent (preceding cause) conditions. Kapitan (1999: 281). Pojman states that hard determinism holds that every event is caused and no one is responsible for actions, whereas soft determinism holds that rational creatures can be held responsible for determined actions as long as they are done voluntarily and without force or coercion. Pojman (1996: 586).
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Reply to Miss Cia: Soft determinism, indeterminism, hard determinism, fatalism
In my view, hard determinism, sometimes called determinism, which is not the same as soft determinism/compatibilism, is a view where it is reasoned there is a primary cause, but no legitimate, human, secondary cause, or self-cause, for thoughts, desires, will, acts/actions.
I will add that within a form hard determinism, I suppose, some secondary causes might also impact people as well as a primary cause, but there is no self-cause. From a biblical perspective a mentally limited person with act and actions could be for example, impacted by God (primary cause) (allowing or directly willing), person x (secondary cause), demonic being (secondary cause), other circumstances, such as a barking dog (secondary cause).
Ethics and Aesthetics: Responsibility continued
The text then appeals to psychology and notes 'most humans have a deep psychological reluctance to accept that their actions are not free.' (150). It explains that people believe that he/she actually has moral motives. (150). This means that there is moral responsibility for actions.
I agree with how the text separates between where 'an agent has been physically compelled, threatened or hypnotized, and situations where none of these things apply.' (150). Between an 'action that is 'constrained (physically or morally) and one that is not.' (150).
As a compatibilist, and Reformed theologian, within soft determinism, I view God, as infinite, eternal and omnipotent, as the primary cause of this theoretical chain of human nature, consciousness, thoughts, desires, limited free will, choices, acts and actions. When this chain is embraced by a human being, as a finite, secondary cause, as in willing and choosing, leading to acts and actions; there is significant, moral responsibility.
I reason a human being cannot choose or change his/her nature, from corrupt to incorrupt.
The human nature is biblically in this realm, sinful and fallen (Genesis 1-3, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, as examples). But where this nature leads to embracing choices and the results, without force or coercion, significant moral accountability exists.
Jesus stated:
Matthew 15: 18-20 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
Mark 7: 20-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
Cited
Strong's Concordance
kardia: heart
Original Word: καρδία, ας, ἡ
lit: the heart; mind, character, inner self, will, intention, center
The root word
καρδίᾳ (my add)
Cited
Matthew 15:8 N-NFS (Noun: Nominative, Feminine, Singular)
Nominative is describing the subject, my add.
GRK: ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω
There can be things that occur to a human being where there is not significant, moral responsibility, such as me being under anesthesia and waking up being angry and speaking angrily with my surgeon. My surgeon told me I did this, for which I had absolutely no memory of. I apologized, which was being respectful, and he stated I had said nothing bad. In my mind, I am not morally responsible for that outburst, although within my Reformed Christian worldview:
1 Corinthians 15: 50 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
My nature which is at present corrupted and sinful, needs to be perfected to ultimately be suitable for the culminated Kingdom of God (Revelation 20-22). I likely would not have my angry comments against the surgeon trying to help me counted as a sin by God, but simultaneously, I committed the action within a sinful nature which is considered unacceptable to God for his Kingdom in its culminated state. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 15 explains that those in Jesus Christ are eventually, post-mortem, resurrected to spiritual and physical perfection.
Ethics and Aesthetics; Responsibility continued
The last section of the text under this entry states 'Recently some feminist approaches to ethics have emphasized the importance of the notion of real-life moral issues.' (150). As opposed to abstract philosophical issues of 'rights and justice' (150), To 'replace this impersonal approach with a theory that places weight on the responsibilities inherent in personal relationships.' (150). It is stated that there is a 'care ethic' (150) as many women have a position as 'carers' (150).
I am likely somewhat familiar with this type of approach as my PhD work which featured sections on feminism and problems of evil, as well as practical theology. But, I by no means am willing to dismiss objective biblical doctrines, theology and philosophy and related ethics and moral responsibility. At the same time, applying these objective values to people as individuals, valuing love as much as truth, is essential for useful practical theology within ministry. Within a democracy there is also often significant disagreement in what is actually ethical and moral.
2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Fatalism’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 137. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
KAPITAN, TOMIS (1996) ‘Free Will Problem’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
