Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
According to Susan Wolf, free will involves conducting oneself in a manner that is consistent with reason guided by what is good and what is true. This means that people are free when they do the correct things and slaves to their own flesh when they act in the wrong manner. To make her argument about free will plausible, Wolf uses a principle of the asymmetry of reason, which contradicts the position taken by the modern church on the issue of evil (Waller,2008). According to the church, God is absolved from the responsibility of the evil done by man because he has given man the freedom to choose between good and evil. According to the wolf asymmetry of reason view, man is responsible for his own good or evil actions as long as there is the capability to act according to the good and the true.
There are people who have the psychological determination to do the right thing and according to Wolf, if this determination is driven by the right reason, then there is compatibility with the relevant and acceptable ability. On the other hand, there are people who have the psychological dispensation to do the wrong thing and regardless of the reason, this presents a denial of the capability to act according to what is true and what is good. This means that Wolfs position on free will is that a psychological determination to do what is good deserves praise but a psychological determination to do bad things does not necessarily attract blame (James, 1999).
The position taken by Wolf attacks the postulation on alternative possibilities which she claims is not needed and that is why she defends the principle of compatibilism which argues in favor of the free will. When the choices that human beings make are in tandem with the values that they hold, they become free. This means that the choices that they make should not be compatible with their desires and passions because this will make human beings slaves of their flesh and this cannot constitute a practical reason. Wolf goes on to explain the principle of free will by insinuating that regardless of the nature of determinism, human beings exhibit moral conduct in their reactionary stance towards the conduct of others (James, 1999). This is seen when they laud or accuse others of their conduct. This means that moral responsibility exists and it is the one that gives human beings freedom from the aftermath of immoral actions. She supports Kants postulation on autonomy saying that free will is connected to a persons will which is vital for ones action, mannerisms and lifestyle to be controlled by one will.
However, she is quick to point out that this autonomy and responsibility may not be possible because human beings find themselves being controlled by external desires they do not have powers upon. These desires are not the will of the person and the choices made by a person under the control of those external passions and desires may not apply to the principle of the good and the truth from which free will operates (Waller, 2008). That is why she argues that autonomy needs the will of the person because it is hard to determine the behavior of a human being without establishing whether there was the ability to act in the principle of the good and the true.
References
Walker, J.1999. The Will to Believe and Other Popular Essays in Philosophy. MA: Harvard University Press.
Waller, B. N. (2008). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues (2nd ed). New York: Pearson/Longman
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.