Introduction
It has been much easier for philosophical scholars whose studies revolve around the issues related to responsibility and free will and are thus less likely to experience problems with regards to their line of work. It is rare for the philosophers in this field to experience any difficulties mainly because in our day to day lives; we are bound to meet with issues regarding responsibility. However, with critical observation, anyone would quite wonder if in any case, the interconnectedness between both philosophical and non-philosophical ideas in this particular case study are indeed realistic. Taking a keen look at daily activities, all parties whose concerns get based on responsibility will think that they are aware of all conditions regarding liability. Their mindset will always revolve around such ideologies as whether the person in question was matured, well-versed or stable enough to have met their duty of responsibility. This particular issue of accountability is directed towards all classes of people regardless of age since every deed we do comes with a consequence, and it is up to every single person to know how to handle things that come their way; which is generally what we call as responsibility.
On a different viewpoint, however, most philosophers are skeptical about the conditions of responsibility. They tend to leave out the act of creating a division between responsible people and those who are not. Their primary concern is whether human beings can even be accountable for sure if not everything in their lives (Wolf, 2017). From our previous studies, we have come to learn a lot on this area and can even develop a basis for an argument that all philosophical ideologies get generated from those ideas which do not have any philosophical origin. With this fact in mind, we are bound to easily convince ourselves that even if these ideas were not to be snowed under by the problems of philosophy, they would still be in existence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
With the fact that peoples’ concerns surround the maturity and sanity of the actions of the person in question, then they should add the concern of whether that particular person is ‘metaphysically free’ enough to their list of worries. In this particular case study, the author’s claim gets generally based on convincing people whose mindsets are already inclined to being concerned about philosophical issues not to drop the common philosophical problems that had previously occurred. Her argument further suggests that the collective realization that sanity being one of the conditions of responsibility is interconnected with the shadowy problems of metaphysics which get trivially related with most if not all issues of responsibility(Wolf, 2017). In the event of fully recognizing and comprehending the role of sanity in this particular study, only then can we conclude defining with clarity some of the impossible problems of metaphysics concerning responsibility.
The philosopher used a specific strategy to make this research conclusive enough. This was through a rigorous examination of the most recent trends of previous discussions that had gotten held concerning responsibility. This strategy, however, is limited as it does not provide analysis concerning the conditions of liability that can be accepted. This is because of the impossible-to-solve problems of metaphysics (Maibon, 2013). It is at this juncture that the philosopher chooses to put into practice the condition of sanity in redefining responsibility. In the beginning, it will only seem impossible even to consider that the requirement stating that the person in question who is responsible who could have created himself; ends up being just an ordinary requirement. Instead, the specification says that the agent under study should have a degree of sanity.
The view of deep self
Basing this point of our case study on abstracts from philosophical views of philosophers such as Watson and Frankfurt, we get a detailed critique of the notion of the deep self. On the positive side of things, we get to comprehend the importance of this view in the sense that it provides us with an explanation on the part of our previous intuitive theories concerning responsibility. In most cases, you will find that the relationship between peoples’ wills and their deep selves is damaged completely (Wolf, 2017). There will get controlled by the external factors surrounding them and not their deep selves. One other point of view is that how most adults handle responsibility are completely different from the techniques adopted by other animals or infants since this party sets lack both their deep selves. Theoretically, the view of deep self presents a positive response to how the fear of determination gets presented. It is important to note that a person’s desires are what genuinely control their determination to do certain things; and that their passions also control their behavior. The people who were previously concerned about whether commitment translates to fatality are bound to realize that their fears have barely been gotten rid of.
With this view of the deep self, we get a chance to vividly identify the answer to the already distorted fear of determinism. This is because it allows us to separate the cases whereby foreign forces tend to determine one's desires from those cases whereby one's deep self is behind one's desires. However, the protagonist of the view of deep person will only reflect on the fact that any human action can only get separated from all this even in the event of relying based on the truth behind determinism. Determinism is inclined to the fact that there is a regular cycle between the factors controlling our actions and desires. On a critical point of view, we can only say that the very desires that control all the activities carried out by human beings are, on the other hand, controlled by other prevailing factors. These other factors, in most cases, tend to be our inner deeper selves in the long run.
This is where we come to an understanding that this aspect of responsibility provides a positive response to our initial fear of determinism. However, not many individuals will respond positively to this particular ideology. One would undoubtedly proceed to ask who or rather what could be behind their deeper self, given that their actions are said to be controlled by their desires, which are in turn controlled by their more profound person.
Generally, only a unique metaphysical aspect can genuinely help us in the quest for our separation from other organisms in the world since we cannot conclusively determine a definite distinction between determinism and indeterminism. The concept of the deep-self view has however proved to be of some use as we have learned that when one possesses a deep inner self, then their desires are bound to govern their actions. This is such a helpful and practical viewpoint.
With our possession of a deep inner self, we get to control our actions. We can make a positive reflection of the kinds of beings we are, based on our activities. We also have the capability of identifying the types of marks that we tend to mark on the world. We even can alter what we do not love about ourselves, and actually, stick to the things we find pleasing to ourselves. It is, however, controversial to come to a concrete decision on the kind of freedom we genuinely want, given the laid down facts that we control our actions and desires, which has been made possible by the possession of a deep inner self.
The condition of sanity
It is important to note that there is indeed a different type of freedom that we seek. The concept of the deep-self view portrays some limitations. It fails to utterly convince us when it gets presented as a full account of the conditions regarding responsibility. To reach a conclusive answer to the reason behind this, we will have to take into consideration another agent with whom his duty is not definitive enough.
For instance, we can use an example of a certain son of a dictator from some country in the east. The son of this dictator is his father’s favorite, and naturally, he grows up following his father’s footsteps. The father is known for delegating harsh punishment to people who go against his rule of law. He has instituted the use of torture, long-term imprisonment and even punishment by hanging or beheading for anyone who committed severe offenses like treason. His son grows up with time and takes over in the event of his death. The son has always grown to observe the decisions made by his father, and he takes after him in all aspects. The way he executed his choices was a complete replica of how his deceased father carried out his obligations. It is not at any single point that he is forced to act the way he did, but he does them according to his desires.
Based on his rearing, and because he was immobilized to take control over everything that goes on. There is a vast deal of uncertainty concerning whether he should get taken as a responsible person for what he does or not. There is not much of clarity as to whether any other subject who might have had an upbringing from a background like his could grow up and develop into the exact harsh and inhuman person like of his stature. However, it is essential to note that he acted out of his desires, which are in turn controlled by his deep inner self.
In the broader point of view, the concept of the light of deep self was indeed correct in identifying that the aspects of freedom incorporated with responsibility needs for us to build on some specific control types with regards to our behavioral conduct. In a particular viewpoint, we should note that it is ourselves that control our actions and our inner selves are responsible for governing our deep beings.
Throughout this study, we have learned that these varied types of control cannot wholly convince us concerning the status of any responsible subject. Hence the need for us to further our study toward finding out the possibility of the existence of another control type that would guarantee us that our deep selves are also under our control. However, we should note that either power or control types do not necessarily determine all the necessities for both freedom and responsibility. Instead, we should look for means to distinguish whether we are indeed of that nature or not.
Several problems get interconnected with the above-stated definition of sanity. Some of these problems are bound to be trivial in the subsequent studies, which leaves us with a rather unusual way of defining the term in the numerous concepts in which it has gotten used.
However, when both concepts of sanity and the deep-self view are incorporated together, we tend to come up with a more definitive and concrete answer to them being conditions of responsibility. In the event of being sane, we have the opportunity to comprehend fully and critically assess our distinctive characters more realistically (Clarke, 2014). With this action as a role player, we get to separate the characters rationally we find pleasing from those we do not like, and even establish a basis for eliminating such characters.
Our ability to control our superficial selves with the help of a critical evaluation from deep within ourselves, in turn, becomes useful to us as we get to determine the things we feel require change. Having this in mind, we find that even though it is unlikely for us to be metaphysically responsible for ourselves, we get to be accountable for ourselves on a moral point of view. This is because we tend to appreciate and comprehend all our sides, both right and wrong. Hence we get a chance to correct our actions and characters as we see fit.
Conclusion
Throughout this study, we have come to appreciate the fact that the balanced deep-self view takes into consideration the fact that sanity is unambiguously normative. This is an important point. In all senses that rationality could bring up, the concept can get referred to as authoritative.
Both sanity and our deep selves have a part to play in defining the overall conditions of responsibility. The philosopher has an ideal argument on the subject under study. Our actions are most definitely affected by our desires, which are in turn affected by our inner selves. We have the power to control our characters because with sanity comes responsibility, which is only possible by the way we manage our most profound internal people. We are even capable of rooting out all the evil characters we might have developed all along with our development by merely reflecting on our desires, actions, and deep selves.
The analysis of the philosopher has accommodated the space for possible mistakes which does not make this piece of work biased. It has widened its scope of research by extending into primary sources and other philosophical concepts that GOT initially based on this particular study of sanity and the metaphysics of responsibility. This, therefore, gives us the full confidence of the specificity of the research which has, through a detailed evaluation of aspects in play, narrowed down the role of sanity in fully comprehending responsibility as a whole concept.
References
Clarke, R. L. (2014). Moral Responsibility for Omissions. Omissions , 105-134. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199347520.003.0006
Maibom, H. L. (2013). Values, Sanity, and Responsibility*. Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility Volume 1 , 263-283. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694853.003.0012
Wolf, S. L. (2017). Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility. Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions , 2 (12), 46-62. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625411.003
