In “Neuroscientific Challenges to Free Will and Responsibility” by Adina Roskies she tackles the argument pertaining to whether advancements in to how the brain causes behavior will increase the concern regarding moral responsibility and free will. Roskies shows concern in context to a disengagement in personal and moral responsibility due to the increasing advances. Roskies implication of this text indicates that more harm than good will come about as a result of ongoing studies to how the brain causes certain behavior.
Roskies hints that neuroscience could dispose of ethical responsibility and remove accountability due to blame being placed on incoming research and trials. While Roskies arguments are valid and come from a place of concern In my eyes the concept of moral responsibility and free will won’t be disposed by advanced research/studies. Roskies reasoning that incoming information as to how the brain causes behavior will get rid of moral responsibility and free will is unlikely and illogical.
I disagree with Rooskie’s notions that advanced research in neuroscience will cause the effects that she claims. Rooskie’s stance may derive from a belief that ill deeds and or wrong doings will be covered up or blamed on mental health disposing a sense of personal responsibility in tense avoiding accountability. While natural behavior consists of an instinct to diverge blame elsewhere when put under the radar of accountability, the act of assigning fault in its entirety on mental health or new medical studies is ill informed.
127 our experts are availableright now
Free will will not be affected. Studies are beneficial to have a stronger understanding as to how the brain causes behavior and why certain behaviors occur. The concept of free will and Responsibility is a part of humanistic behavior.
While free will and moral responsibility are coherently related they will not be diminished. Roskies fears how ethics and personal accountability will change in the future as a result of mental health defenses in times of persecution and jurisdiction. Roskies fails to take into account how difficult it would be to completely dispose of responsibility and place blame elsewhere. I disagree with Rooskie’s suggestion that a concept of control needs to be put in place in order to preserve moral responsibility. In my eyes a concept of control has and will always be in place.
I disagree with Rooskie’s suggestion due to the concept of deterrents being effective. If an individual wanted to harm another or commit an act deemed illegal by the law the agitator might reconsider due to deterrents that will in this scenario put his freedom in jeopardy. The concept of control that Rooskie’s wishes to implement is already there and in effect.
While Rooskie’s may wish to implement her own concept of control there is no greater system of control then judicial law. I don’t believe discussing brain processes degrades humans to just “mere mechanisms”. Humans are complex beings and looking into natural mechanisms and why things work the way they do is crucial to understanding why a particular behavior or emotion may occur.
References
- Responsibility – an article discussing the concept of responsibility
- FMRI Theory – a blog post explaining the theory behind fMRI
- The Neuroscience of Free Will: Implications for Psychiatry – a scientific study on the neuroscience of free will
- There’s No Such Thing as Free Will – an article arguing against the concept of free will
- Neuroscience and Responsibility – a scientific paper exploring the relationship between neuroscience and responsibility
