PHIL 130- question set 9 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download PHIL 130- question set 9 PDF

Description

00001465246 PHIL 130 – 023 Question Set 9 28 February 2018 712 words

1. Blatchford gives reasons for thinking that heredity and especially environment influence people’s choices, make it more difficult for them to do some things than others, and perhaps even rule out some choices entirely. Do any of these reasons, or any other reasons that he gives, make a strong case for the claim that what a person does is entirely determined by heredity and environment, so that no other alternative than what he did was genuinely possible for him?

Heredity is what you get handed down from your parents before any experience. Environment encapsulates EVERYTHING else. It is not just where you live and how much money you have, but every small experience you have that forms who you are. Because these two things grasp everything that you are, they must be the whole cause for what decisions you “make”. Make isn’t as it sounds in this case. You do not make the choice yourself, your environment and heredity make it for you. The way he explains heredity and environment and elaborates on everything they include, allows this claim to be plausible. I am not able to think of a counterargument for this. 2. Suppose that Blatchford is wrong in claiming that a person’s actions are entirely determined by his heredity and environment. One possibility is that there is a degree of randomness in human action: that there is more than one possible choice for a person with a specified heredity and environment in a particular situation and that it is a matter of chance which of the possible choices he or she will make. What would Blatchford probably say about a choice that is to this degree random, and do you think he would be right? Is there any further alternative besides complete determination by heredity and environment, or partial determination plus a degree of randomness?

Blatchford claimed that the randomness of a decision isn’t so much random as it is a near balance of two environmental or hereditary forces pulling you in different directions. If they were perfectly balanced, a decision could not be made. As soon as one overpowers the other, a decision is made and it shows that one or the other was reinforced heavier in some way in your life. The randomness has a cause, and that cause is environmental and hereditary factors that formed you and urged you to partake in the “random” act. I do think Blatchford is right because we are only free to our own constraints. Some people recognize that small freedom but others like Blatchford would claim that your own constraints (environment and heredity) are binding and allow no freedom. Regardless of the way you look at the influences and causes of your decisions, it is YOUR heredity and YOUR environment, no one else’s. What does being free mean to you? This would determine the way you interpret your environment and heredity being the cause of your decisions. I do not think that partial determination with a degree of randomness is in the equation. The randomness is limited by the path your decisions made from your

00001465246 PHIL 130 – 023 Question Set 9 28 February 2018 712 words

environment and heredity. It could not be random because you were led there by your decisions. Environment and heredity can in theory cover every aspect of your life, and therefore every factor into decisions. 3. If Blatchford’s deterministic view is correct, does it follow that it is pointless to punish (or praise) people for what they do? Can you think of any justification for punishment that is compatible with hard determinism? Yes it is pointless to punish them in hard determinism. EVERY decision is predetermined by the persons heredity and environment. Blatchford claims that no man is good or bad, or deserves praise or punishment. What they do is not freely decided by them. They are either fortunate for getting a good environment and good hereditary traits or they are unfortunate to get the contrary. If someone wins the nobel peace prize, that is not worthy of praise. If someone murders someone, the blame is not on them, but their heredity and environment. The “random” acts are not worthy of punishment or praise either because when given a situation, all can be traced back to something in the persons environment or heredity passed down to them....