Philosophy Final:
Essay Question / Prompt You are defending someone accused of robbing a bank. It’s already been shown that they committed the robbery – your client confessed, and the confession is backed up by footage from a security camera. In short, there’s no doubt they did it.
Your goal is to argue that even though they physically committed the act, they are not responsible for what happened, since they were not acting freely. Your defense should focus on the concepts of determinism and incompatibilism, which we discussed in class. Make sure to note the conception of freedom that underlies incompatibilism.
Don’t worry whether appeals to determinism and incompatibilism would work in a court of law (they would not). You are only arguing that your client is not morally responsible, regardless of whether they’re legally responsible.
Your essay should not exceed 400 words.
·
Write this paper in the simplest form ever, as. If you were explaining it to a 12-year-old
·
NO super long FANCY words
·
Very simple words
·
NO Citations
·
NO AI
·
NO PLAGARISM
·
Double spaced, Times New Roman