Introduction
Susan Wolf is a prominent philosopher of action and moral philosopher who has significantly contributed to free will. She is well-known for her defense of compatibilism and her criticism of moral perfectionism. In her work on free will, Susan Wolf claims that determinism and free will coexist. She argues that the justification for some practices need not rely on the assumption of free will. Our ability to act freely is limited, and external factors hinder that.
Susan Wolf’s View of Free Will and Determinism
Susan Wolf believes that free will is compatible with determinism. Wolf argues that “the justification of these practices need not rest on the assumption that we have free will…” (386). The argument states that some practices require justification, but it does not need to be based on the premise that people have free will. The argument is that the practices in question can be defended. It means that there can be no reliance on free will. It could be because free will is unnecessary to justify these practices.
Wolf’s position on free will can be seen in her paper “The Importance of Free Will”. The article states that our moral judgments and blame would be meaningless without free will. Regarding morality and blame, Wolf states that “our ordinary experience of the phenomena encourages us to consider them as expressions of a kind of judgement” (389). It means that our everyday experiences of these moral evaluations make us inclined to see them as expressions of a particular type of assessment or appraisal.
Personal Opinion
As a practicing philosopher, I find Susan Wolf’s compatibilist defense compelling. I agree with her stance that external factors do not entirely dictate our actions. It aligns with my stance that we do not possess some measure of influence over our lives. Nonetheless, our free will has constraints, and societal and economic inequalities can limit our capacity to act on our desires and intentions (Aiyar and Ebeke).
I appreciate Wolf’s critique of moral perfectionism, as it is an unrealistic and harmful approach to ethics. On the contrary, I stand with her belief that we ought to prioritize being sufficiently good and that this necessitates adopting a more compassionate and practical outlook on human nature. It is crucial to recognize that we are imperfect creatures prone to errors and must aim for moral progress without establishing unrealistic benchmarks for ourselves.
Nevertheless, I hold some reservations about Wolf’s notions of free will. Although I agree with her assertion regarding freedom, our control over our lives is subject to limitations imposed by factors beyond our purview. For example, one’s social and economic standing can markedly impact one’s capacity to pursue one’s aspirations. Moreover, genetic and environmental elements can influence our decision-making and restrict our options.
Conclusion
In summary, Susan Wolf is a well-known philosopher who has made noteworthy contributions to the domains of ethics and free will. Her advocacy for compatibilism and criticism of moral perfectionism provide valuable insights into how we should approach questions of human agency and moral accountability. External factors can significantly affect our ability to act on our wishes and intentions. Wolf’s work offers a valuable outlook on the intricate interplay between free will and determinism. Her perspectives can assist us in developing a more nuanced comprehension of human agency and ethical conduct.
Works Cited
Aiyar, Shekhar, and Christian Ebeke. “The Threat of Inequality of Opportunity.” IMF, Web.
Wolf, Susan. “The Importance of Free Will.” JSTOR, 1981, Web.