Freedom And Responsibility Essays Examples

1) Did each of the agents freely commit the acts?
In case 1, Caleb had the free will throughout. He had the freedom to decide the amount of liquor that he would drink. If he did not want his girlsfriend to drive, he should have taken the responsibility to stay sober to be able to drive safely. However, since the act is not drinking but driving the car into the river, Caleb cannot be blamed. It was circumstantial and Caleb had instead tried very hard to save themselves from drowning.
In case 2, however, Ellen completely had free will to decide whether or not she wanted to hit her daughter. Blaming the actions of her mother to dismiss her own similar behavior is not right. It is a person’s own free will to decide whether or not they want to repeat actions of others. It does not come heriditary.
In case 3, while Jesse was being forced to drive through the police barrier, he was not forced to run down the police officer. It was, again, circumstantial. While it was not Jesse’s free will to run down the police officer, it was his carelessness that caused it. 2) Did extenuating circumstances limit the amount of freedom each of the agents had?
While cases 1 and 3 qualify for sharing the partial blame with extenuating circumstances (such circumstances that forced or inadvertently led towards the series of events that took place), case 2 does fall into this category. While in case 1, Caleb had to fight ice on the road that led to car slipping; in case 3, Jesse had to fight the chance where the police officer stood in way of breaking the police barrier that Jesse was forced to do. However, in case 2, Ellen had complete control of her actions, irrespective of how important it was that she was watching on the television. Hence, there are no extenuating circumstances present in case 2. 3) Should the agents be held morally responsible for their acts?
When we say moral responsibility, it means accruiting someone responsible towards certain judgemental aspects in life. For example: giving leftovers to a homeless rather than throwing in the bin is a moral responsibility. However, morals differ from human to human and same morality does not hold true for everyone. In this light, let us examine the cases.
In case 1, when we say specifically for the act, which was driving the car into the river, Caleb cannot be held morally responsible for that. The reason for the same is that he cannot be accrued with the blame of car skidding over ice onto the road and into the river. Nevertheless, looking at the larger picture, it all started with Caleb over-drinking at a party. Him deciding to drive the car himself instead of letting his girlfriend drive was a mistake and he can be held morally responsible for that.
In case 2, the act is Ellen hitting her daughter with an iron pot. It is true that Ellen in her turn was hit in a similar fashion by her own mother when she was yung. Nevertheless, this does not take away the moral responsibility that Ellen has towards the well being of her own daughter. Therefore, Ellen can be said to be morally responsible towards the incident of hitting her daughter with an iron pot.
In case 3, deciding moral responsibility of Jesse in killing the police officer is a little difficult. Jesse has always been a law abiding citizen. In his circumstances, he is being forced to become an accomplice of a robbery. Then again, he is being forced to run down a police barrier. Therefore, he cannot be entirely blamed for running down a police officer. Another way of looking at it, though, is that he was being forced to run down a police barrier. He was, however, not forved to run over a police officer. He could have found an alternate way of running down the police barrier avoiding killing the police officer. Then again, a counter argument would be to understand his state of mind. In his state of mind, where nervousness reigned his ability to make any rational movement or decision, he can be excused from taking the moral responsibility of killing a police officer. 4) Should anyone else be held morally responsible (or partly morally responsible) for the acts?
While it is the taking responsibility for a adeed or a misdeed which is the most difficult part for any human, setting the blame on someelse for one’s own actions seem to be the most easy thing to do. We can set others accountable for each of the cases presented to us. However, the righteousness of the blame depends on the lookout of each person reading this.
Some might argue that the girlfriend is to be blamed equally for the very fact that she did not coerce her drunk boyfriend into giving her the keys for driving the car. However, it is simply a matter of one’s perspective. The girlfriend can be partly held accountable for the act.
In the second case, as it is explained in the very beginning that Ellen had faced abusive mother in her own childhood, some might hence give certain leverage to Ellen for hitting her own daughter. Hence, Ellen’s mother can be blamed to some extent for the act. Nevertheless, in this particular case, it is a matter of personal behavior of a conscientious adult (as is established from that fact that Ellen refrains from hitting her daughter), which is not influenced by any such external factor whatsoever. Therefore, Ellen alone can be blamed for her act here.
Lastly, a huge part of Jesse’s act can be atributed to the robber, who forces Jesse by way of threatening, to be a part of a robbery and running down a police block. It was because of this that Jesse was forced to run down a police block inadvertently killing an officer. While this comes to us as a just response to the question and the circumstances presented, the fact is that the robber had forced Jesse to run down the road block, not to kill a police officer. Therefore, depending upon the perspective of the reader, this point of consideration can differ.