There is clear evidence to verify we have freedom to act ethically, we see this through our strong sense of rationalisation through our conscience (Enrich Fromm).
There are major flaws to this statement as it could be suggested that ‘ethical’ behaviour is an influence of external factors such as natural laws, religion, primary and secondary carers and prior events. Therefore, the question could be raised, do we actually any have any freedom to act ethically or is it just a result of what we have already learnt (Piaget)? Then again, what is ethical behaviour to begin with? A universal idea of what is right or wrong that is decided by a group of people? The concluding opinion that will be formed is: we do have a genuine amount of freedom however this notion is only supported to a certain extent as I believe we are influenced by external factors. This essay will discuss points that would approve and disapprove of this statement because I believe it is a combination of both, going with a soft determinist approach.
Hard determinists would suggest our choices are determined by prior events. This is a logical statement because a choice we make today could affect the choice we would make tomorrow. For example, a levels are picked accordingly due to prior grades we received in GCSE. Aquinas’s cause and effect theory is applicable to this notion of everything have an efficient cause: nothing can be efficient or cause itself. However, despite this approach making total sense as it is an intelligible to suggest that prior events do effect the choices we make today, resulting in a restriction, resulting with us not having complete freedom over the choices but over the outcome to act ethically. This is where some might see this theory’s flaws, for example the case of Loeb and Leopold could be taken into account as they were let off the death penalty to life imprisonment because it was argued that they weren’t free to act ethically due to the murder being a result of their upbringing. Therefore, critics would argue that this case deconstructs because it is seen that we have a moral compass that directs our actions ethically through our conscious, so there would be no substance with the hard determinists approach. Nevertheless, it is still a valid explanation for the crime and that is why it was taken into account that our prior decisions and upbringing do play an important part and it determines whom we are today. This shows that the past does have a certain amount of influences on us
In stark contrast to the question, it would be valuable to consider what in actual fact ‘ethical’ behaviour is because it might be acceptable for a group of people but might not be respected in another making it subjective. We could use the example of the views of an Atheist compared to the views of a Christian believer on the subject of being homosexual. In the same instance, we could bring it back to the question of whether or not we have the ‘freedom’, there is no universalised idea of what 'ethical' is. (Not only this, the notion of religion as an external factor that affects our freedom to act ethically could be acknowledged) The Use of Wittgenstein’s language games could be considered here.
The compatibilist approach seems fit my opinion best as I believe ‘we are free, but there are outside influences that are beyond our control which determines what we choose’. This is an accurate suggestion because humans can knowingly make moral decisions, for example not pushing someone whom is neat the edge of a cliff of, however we do have the limitations from nature, this being genetically, psychologically or physically e.g. gravity. Like James Rachels suggested, “whether your behaviour is free just depends on how it is caused”. B.F. Skinners approach was logical as he stated behaviour was determined by our psychological makeup.so we can’t actually be held morally responsible. However, this is only perceivable if we don’t question for any proof which is a major drawback to the statement. Nevertheless, it is an intelligible theory that explains how much freedom we possess.
However, Libertarians such as Hume would suggest that we are free so we have a genuine amount of freedom that that allows us to act ethically therefore, the incompatibilist theory suggests if we if we are ultimately free then we must be held fully accountable for our ethical decisions so our actions are completely self-determining because we believe we have the freedom. Examples would be given from people who have been raised in a drug-heavy society yet choose not do practice drugs. This shows that we have chosen to take this course of action and therefore consequently must be held morally responsible. This shows excellent examples that because we are free, we have the actuality of actively choosing to act ethically. Something that also entirely limits our freedom it the notion of prior thoughts governing what the outcome might be. This opens the idea of what we think of as freedom and whether or not we actually possess it to make full ethical decisions. The obvious answer would be no; we have the full potentiality to act ethically due to prior events.
Although, hard determinist, Sir Isaac Newton’s opinion would differ as he would have suggested our ‘freedom’ to make moral decisions is in actual fact an illusion. He would have stated that there are limitations to our freedom which do inhibit our ability to act ethically, for example, gravity is an external factor that acts as a limitation on our freedom. Therefore, just as gravity, there are other examples such as culture, media or genetics this limit our ability to act in a certain way. So the question here that can be raised is whether we actually have the freedom to act ethically if there are factors that prevent us from behaving in a certain way?
Granting all this, religious believer Kant would have strongly opposed to this notion as he believed “our understanding of the world around us and of our self-awareness that must be free”. Equally, John Paul Sartre claimed, “a choice is said to be free and freedom comes unlimited moral responsibility”. Both philosophers support the idea that we possess the freedom to act ethically. This makes sense as humans have the knowledge of acting ethically doing the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ thing. For example, if we had a gun in our hand and our enemy was opposite we can choose whether to pull the trigger or not. Therefore giving us the ability to make a decision. This then results in the conclusion of we do have freedom to act ethically.
However since we are on the subject of Christianity, some protestant Christians would suggest that God has determined everything (predetermination). This raises the question of the statement: ‘we do not possess any genuine freedom to act ethically’ being flawed within itself because the debating of this question would be pointless in terms of it being pointless due to the fact of God deciding everything in the first place, so what is the purpose of suggesting we have freedom in the first place. Therefore, we could claim from this that we in actual fact have no freedom. The, however, argument seems slightly far-fetched simply because humans do feel that we have aspects of freedom. Although ‘feeling’ and actually ‘possessing’ are two different attributes. Nevertheless, the statement does mention if we possess ‘genuine’ and not complete freedom, so do we, in reference to this particular topic, it doesn't seem so? This view would support John Calvin’s notion of humans inheriting evil because we are so full of sin we cannot do anything to reject God but God was so gracious enough to predestine humans that were capable of being saved. This argument does enable us to understand in a more coherent way how determinism works. However, some critics would argue that still doesn't put aside that is quite unfair and better our knowledge of free will.
However in the Old Testaments Adam and Eve, there seems to be a sense of freedom to make ethical decisions as eve willingly disobeys god and picks fruit from the tree of knowledge. So it seems from a religious perspective God has allowed us to have free will but then do we inherit this sin and that’s why we don’t possess any genuine freedom? Perhaps this is the answer?
We, as humans are full of contradictions whether in religion or in general. In my opinion, it is still inconclusive if we possess a genuine amount of freedom or not. However, it seems though, that the soft determinist theory is more logical because we are free bur we are also limited just as James Rachels describes it, it “just depends on how it was caused”.