Philosophy and Psychiatry Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Philosophy and Psychiatry - Essay Example For every argument that "personal reactive attitude" puts forward, there is a counter-argument used by "objective attitude." The whole idea seems to be rotating in circles and ending up in a blind alley. Strawson is, however, diplomatic in his stand. While he is willing to side one, he is not prepared to sidestep or antagonize the other. He voices his opinion in favour of the first group, the group which simply dismisses the thesis of determinism as something it does not know anything about. However, he sympathizes with the other group or sub-groups. Could it be hypocrisy on his part No, says Strawson. He favours reconciliation because he believes that there is some light in what the group of pessimists, optimists and sceptics say. The Arguments Now, coming to the main issue, the optimists feel that the thesis of determinism cannot be ruled out as false for the simple reason that the "facts as we know them do not show determinism to be false." [2] That is to say, the optimists feel, there are enough facts to corroborate the existence and relevance of determinism. However, they submit that the facts are not strong enough to convince the pessimists. Or else, they are not in a position to present the facts in a convincing manner. Therefore, the optimists are willing to 2 The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website -- of http://www.ucl.ac.uk/uctytho/dfwstrawson1.htm, page 2 concede a "vital part" of their facts which they find difficult to produce, in exchange for the pessimists' willingness to "go beyond the facts" and thus allow some kind of a status quo, so that whatever is "beyond the facts" may still hold out some ray of hope for the pessimists. The status quo is necessary because the pessimists cannot prove that the optimists are...The status quo is necessary because the pessimists cannot prove that the optimists are totally wrong for being unable to adequately represent the facts. (page 2) Going a step further, Strawson elaborates, â€Å"Some optimists about determinism point to the efficacy of the practices of punishment, and of moral condemnation and approval, in regulating behaviour in socially desirable ways. The fact of their efficacy, they suggest, is an adequate basis for these practices; and this fact certainly does not show determinism to be false.† To this the pessimists counter that, â€Å"just punishment and moral condemnation imply moral guilt and guilt implies moral responsibility and moral responsibility implies freedom and freedom implies the falsity of determinism.† The optimists persist, â€Å"it is true that these practices require freedom in a sense, and the existence of freedom in this sense is one of the facts as we know them. But what ‘freedom’ means here is nothing but the absence of certain conditions the presence of which would make moral condemnation or punishment inappropriate.† [3] How one wishes the buck stopped here! But it does not! The pessimists too persist, â€Å"You turn towards me first the negative, and then the positive, faces of a freedom which nobody challenges. But the only reason you have given for the practices of moral condemnation and punishment in cases where this freedom is present.