The concept of freewill is privilege that many tend to take for granted. The plausibility that humans might be subject to the will of determinism is frightening and very strange. Despite such a foreign thought, the case of Robert Harris bring libertarianism, Compatiblism, and hard incompatibilist together when trying to decipher fact form fiction in the case of Robert Harris. It is through all three of these points that the clarity of criminal and moral responsibility must be made. When truly taking into account the philosophies of these three arguments, the placing of blame on a mass murder because a far more complicated matter and can change the way people point fingers and assign guilt.
While the Libertarian perception of freewill and moral…show more content… The skeptic will agree with the Libertarian, that determinism is not compatible with freewill. However, on a quite different scale, the hard incompatibilist argues that since these two cannot exist together, then free will must be found false since determinism is true. Consequently, since freewill cannot be true, the possibly of someone being help morally responsible for their actions is preposterous. The hard incompatibilist, like Galen Strawson, argue against the notion of freewill because according the laws of nature and The Consequence Argument, no one can be held truly responsible for anything they do. Strawson argues that the belief in free will in an illusion and that most people are actually natural incompatibilists. Furthermore, does anyone get to pick their childhood, their parents, or the time and date of their birth? The logical and obvious answer to this is no. It is a ridiculous notion that you could be the ultimate source of all of your actions or circumstances in your life when in reality, you never truly chose anything. As a child, you were incapable of making the decisions as to who was going to influence you. A child does not get to pick or decide how they will be treated or the type of character that they will establish when character isn’t something you decide to make, it’s the way the influences of the world make you react. Therefore, form…show more content… Kane doesn’t deny the plausibility of reactive attitudes; in fact, Kane’s perception on character actually supports the possibility of reactive attitudes. The only true difference between Kane’s moral responsibility and the compatibilist’s is the level of responsibility that must be assumed by the perpetrator. While the compatibilist takes a more shallow view of moral responsibility, the libertarian will fight for deep moral responsibility. This ties in with the argument put forth by the skeptic. All three arguments puts their own individual spin on the origination of a person’s character, but the libertarian is the only one that makes a perception that is clear enough to follow without any misconceptions. Kane attributes a large portion of a person’s character to the self-forming actions that nurture and develop this character. These self-forming actions must be very difficult decisions that lead the individual to make a life-altering decision. The compatibilist and the skeptic will both criticize their reflection. They will both argue that it is wrong to believe that all of your self-forming are choices that you had to make without any outside influence. The compatibilist will declare that this notion of character places far too much of an emphasis on the individual being the soul source of their life-altering decisions. The skeptic will claim that there had