what is will in ethics essay

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant. (We cannot undertake here a review of related discussions in other philosophical traditions. For a start, the reader may consult Marchal and Wenzel 2017 and Chakrabarti 2017 for overviews of thought on free will, broadly construed, in Chinese and Indian philosophical traditions, respectively.) In this way, it should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?

Here is an overview of what follows. In Section 1 , we acquaint the reader with some central historical contributions to our understanding of free will. (As nearly every major and minor figure had something to say about it, we cannot begin to cover them all.) As with contributions to many other foundational topics, these ideas are not of ‘merely historical interest’: present-day philosophers continue to find themselves drawn back to certain thinkers as they freshly engage their contemporaries. In Section 2 , we map the complex architecture of the contemporary discussion of the nature of free will by dividing it into five subtopics: its relation to moral responsibility; the proper analysis of the freedom to do otherwise; a powerful, recent argument that the freedom to do otherwise (at least in one important sense) is not necessary for moral responsibility; ‘compatibilist’ accounts of sourcehood or self-determination; and ‘incompatibilist’ or ‘libertarian’ accounts of source and self-determination. In Section 3 , we consider arguments from experience, a priori reflection, and various scientific findings and theories for and against the thesis that human beings have free will, along with the related question of whether it is reasonable to believe that we have it. Finally, in Section 4 , we survey the long-debated questions involving free will that arise in classical theistic metaphysics.

1.1 Ancient and Medieval Period

1.2 modern period and twentieth century, 2.1 free will and moral responsibility, 2.2 the freedom to do otherwise, 2.3 freedom to do otherwise vs. sourcehood accounts, 2.4 compatibilist accounts of sourcehood, 2.5 libertarian accounts of sourcehood, 3.1 arguments against the reality of free will, 3.2 arguments for the reality of free will, 4.1 free will and god’s power, knowledge, and goodness, 4.2 god’s freedom, other internet resources, related entries, 1. major historical contributions.

One finds scholarly debate on the ‘origin’ of the notion of free will in Western philosophy. (See, e.g., Dihle (1982) and, in response Frede (2011), with Dihle finding it in St. Augustine (354–430 CE) and Frede in the Stoic Epictetus (c. 55–c. 135 CE).) But this debate presupposes a fairly particular and highly conceptualized concept of free will, with Dihle’s later ‘origin’ reflecting his having a yet more particular concept in view than Frede. If, instead, we look more generally for philosophical reflection on choice-directed control over one’s own actions, then we find significant discussion in Plato and Aristotle (cf. Irwin 1992). Indeed, on this matter, as with so many other major philosophical issues, Plato and Aristotle give importantly different emphases that inform much subsequent thought.

In Book IV of The Republic , Plato posits rational, spirited, and appetitive aspects to the human soul. The wise person strives for inner ‘justice’, a condition in which each part of the soul plays its proper role—reason as the guide, the spirited nature as the ally of reason, exhorting oneself to do what reason deems proper, and the passions as subjugated to the determinations of reason. In the absence of justice, the individual is enslaved to the passions. Hence, freedom for Plato is a kind of self-mastery, attained by developing the virtues of wisdom, courage, and temperance, resulting in one’s liberation from the tyranny of base desires and acquisition of a more accurate understanding and resolute pursuit of the Good (Hecht 2014).

While Aristotle shares with Plato a concern for cultivating virtues, he gives greater theoretical attention to the role of choice in initiating individual actions which, over time, result in habits, for good or ill. In Book III of the Nicomachean Ethics , Aristotle says that, unlike nonrational agents, we have the power to do or not to do, and much of what we do is voluntary, such that its origin is ‘in us’ and we are ‘aware of the particular circumstances of the action’. Furthermore, mature humans make choices after deliberating about different available means to our ends, drawing on rational principles of action. Choose consistently well (poorly), and a virtuous (vicious) character will form over time, and it is in our power to be either virtuous or vicious.

A question that Aristotle seems to recognize, while not satisfactorily answering, is whether the choice an individual makes on any given occasion is wholly determined by his internal state—perception of his circumstances and his relevant beliefs, desires, and general character dispositions (wherever on the continuum between virtue and vice he may be)—and external circumstances. He says that “the man is the father of his actions as of children”—that is, a person’s character shapes how she acts. One might worry that this seems to entail that the person could not have done otherwise—at the moment of choice, she has no control over what her present character is—and so she is not responsible for choosing as she does. Aristotle responds by contending that her present character is partly a result of previous choices she made. While this claim is plausible enough, it seems to ‘pass the buck’, since ‘the man is the father’ of those earlier choices and actions, too.

We note just a few contributions of the subsequent centuries of the Hellenistic era. (See Bobzien 1998.) This period was dominated by debates between Epicureans, Stoics, and the Academic Skeptics, and as it concerned freedom of the will, the debate centered on the place of determinism or of fate in governing human actions and lives. The Stoics and the Epicureans believed that all ordinary things, human souls included, are corporeal and governed by natural laws or principles. Stoics believed that all human choice and behavior was causally determined, but held that this was compatible with our actions being ‘up to us’. Chrysippus ably defended this position by contending that your actions are ‘up to you’ when they come about ‘through you’—when the determining factors of your action are not external circumstances compelling you to act as you do but are instead your own choices grounded in your perception of the options before you. Hence, for moral responsibility, the issue is not whether one’s choices are determined (they are) but in what manner they are determined. Epicurus and his followers had a more mechanistic conception of bodily action than the Stoics. They held that all things (human soul included) are constituted by atoms, whose law-governed behavior fixes the behavior of everything made of such atoms. But they rejected determinism by supposing that atoms, though law-governed, are susceptible to slight ‘swerves’ or departures from the usual paths. Epicurus has often been understood as seeking to ground the freedom of human willings in such indeterministic swerves, but this is a matter of controversy. If this understanding of his aim is correct, how he thought that this scheme might work in detail is not known. (What little we know about his views in this matter stem chiefly from the account given in his follower Lucretius’s six-book poem, On the Nature of Things . See Bobzien 2000 for discussion.)

A final notable figure of this period was Alexander of Aphrodisias , the most important Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle. In his On Fate , Alexander sharply criticizes the positions of the Stoics. He goes on to resolve the ambiguity in Aristotle on the question of the determining nature of character on individual choices by maintaining that, given all such shaping factors, it remains open to the person when she acts freely to do or not to do what she in fact does. Many scholars see Alexander as the first unambiguously ‘libertarian’ theorist of the will (for more information about such theories see section 2 below).

Augustine (354–430) is the central bridge between the ancient and medieval eras of philosophy. His mature thinking about the will was influenced by his early encounter with late classical Neoplatonist thought, which is then transformed by the theological views he embraces in his adult Christian conversion, famously recounted in his Confessions . In that work and in the earlier On the Free Choice of the Will , Augustine struggles to draw together into a coherent whole the doctrines that creaturely misuse of freedom, not God, is the source of evil in the world and that the human will has been corrupted through the ‘fall’ from grace of the earliest human beings, necessitating a salvation that is attained entirely through the actions of God, even as it requires, constitutively, an individual’s willed response of faith. The details of Augustine’s positive account remain a matter of controversy. He clearly affirms that the will is by its nature a self-determining power—no powers external to it determine its choice—and that this feature is the basis of its freedom. But he does not explicitly rule out the will’s being internally determined by psychological factors, as Chrysippus held, and Augustine had theological reasons that might favor (as well as others that would oppose) the thesis that all things are determined in some manner by God. Scholars divide on whether Augustine was a libertarian or instead a kind of compatibilist with respect to metaphysical freedom. (Macdonald 1999 and Stump 2006 argue the former, Baker 2003 and Couenhoven 2007 the latter.) It is clear, however, that Augustine thought that we are powerfully shaped by wrongly-ordered desires that can make it impossible for us to wholeheartedly will ends contrary to those desires, for a sustained period of time. This condition entails an absence of something more valuable, ‘true freedom’, in which our wills are aligned with the Good, a freedom that can be attained only by a transformative operation of divine grace. This latter, psychological conception of freedom of will clearly echoes Plato’s notion of the soul’s (possible) inner justice.

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) attempted to synthesize major strands of Aristotle’s systematic philosophy with Christian theology, and so Aquinas begins his complex discussion of human action and choice by agreeing with Aristotle that creatures such as ourselves who are endowed with both intellect and will are hardwired to will certain general ends ordered to the most general goal of goodness. Will is rational desire: we cannot move towards that which does not appear to us at the time to be good. Freedom enters the picture when we consider various means to these ends and move ourselves to activity in pursuit of certain of them. Our will is free in that it is not fixed by nature on any particular means, and they generally do not appear to us either as unqualifiedly good or as uniquely satisfying the end we wish to fulfill. Furthermore, what appears to us to be good can vary widely—even, over time, intra-personally. So much is consistent with saying that in a given total circumstance (including one’s present beliefs and desires), one is necessitated to will as one does. For this reason, some commentators have taken Aquinas to be a kind of compatibilist concerning freedom and causal or theological determinism. In his most extended defense of the thesis that the will is not ‘compelled’ ( DM 6), Aquinas notes three ways that the will might reject an option it sees as attractive: (i) it finds another option more attractive, (ii) it comes to think of some circumstance rendering an alternative more favorable “by some chance circumstance, external or internal”, and (iii) the person is momentarily disposed to find an alternative attractive by virtue of a non-innate state that is subject to the will (e.g., being angry vs being at peace). The first consideration is clearly consistent with compatibilism. The second at best points to a kind of contingency that is not grounded in the activity of the will itself. And one wanting to read Aquinas as a libertarian might worry that his third consideration just passes the buck: even if we do sometimes have an ability to directly modify perception-coloring states such as moods, Aquinas’s account of will as rational desire seems to indicate that we will do so only if it seems to us on balance to be good to do so. Those who read Aquinas as a libertarian point to the following further remark in this text: “Will itself can interfere with the process [of some cause’s moving the will] either by refusing to consider what attracts it to will or by considering its opposite: namely, that there is a bad side to what is being proposed…” (Reply to 15; see also DV 24.2). For discussion, see MacDonald (1998), Stump (2003, ch. 9) and especially Hoffman & Michon (2017), which offers the most comprehensive analysis of relevant texts to date.

John Duns Scotus (1265/66–1308) was the stoutest defender in the medieval era of a strongly libertarian conception of the will, maintaining on introspective grounds that will by its very nature is such that “nothing other than the will is the total cause” of its activity ( QAM ). Indeed, he held the unusual view that not only up to but at the very instant that one is willing X , it is possible for one to will Y or at least not to will X . (He articulates this view through the puzzling claim that a single instant of time comprises two ‘instants of nature’, at the first but not the second of which alternative possibilities are preserved.) In opposition to Aquinas and other medieval Aristotelians, Scotus maintained that a precondition of our freedom is that there are two fundamentally distinct ways things can seem good to us: as practically advantageous to us or as according with justice. Contrary to some popular accounts, however, Scotus allowed that the scope of available alternatives for a person will be more or less constricted. He grants that we are not capable of willing something in which we see no good whatsoever, nor of positively repudiating something which appears to us as unqualifiedly good. However, in accordance with his uncompromising position that nothing can be the total cause of the will other than itself, he held that where something does appear to us as unqualifiedly good (perfectly suited both to our advantage and justice)—viz., in the ‘beatific vision’ of God in the afterlife—we still can refrain from willing it. For discussion, see John Duns Scotus, §5.2 .

The problem of free will was an important topic in the modern period, with all the major figures wading into it (Descartes 1641 [1988], 1644 [1988]; Hobbes 1654 [1999], 1656 [1999]; Spinoza 1677 [1992]; Malebranche 1684 [1993]; Leibniz 1686 [1991]; Locke 1690 [1975]; Hume 1740 [1978], 1748 [1975]; Edwards 1754 [1957]; Kant 1781 [1998], 1785 [1998], 1788 [2015]; Reid 1788 [1969]). After less sustained attention in the 19th Century (most notable were Schopenhauer 1841 [1999] and Nietzsche 1886 [1966]), it was widely discussed again among early twentieth century philosophers (Moore 1912; Hobart 1934; Schlick 1939; Nowell-Smith 1948, 1954; Campbell 1951; Ayer 1954; Smart 1961). The centrality of the problem of free will to the various projects of early modern philosophers can be traced to two widely, though not universally, shared assumptions. The first is that without belief in free will, there would be little reason for us to act morally. More carefully, it was widely assumed that belief in an afterlife in which a just God rewards and punishes us according to our right or wrong use of free will was key to motivating us to be moral (Russell 2008, chs. 16–17). Life before death affords us many examples in which vice is better rewarded than virtue and so without knowledge of a final judgment in the afterlife, we would have little reason to pursue virtue and justice when they depart from self-interest. And without free will there can be no final judgement.

The second widely shared assumption is that free will seems difficult to reconcile with what we know about the world. While this assumption is shared by the majority of early modern philosophers, what specifically it is about the world that seems to conflict with freedom differs from philosopher to philosopher. For some, the worry is primarily theological. How can we make sense of contingency and freedom in a world determined by a God who must choose the best possible world to create? For some, the worry was primarily metaphysical. The principle of sufficient reason—roughly, the idea that every event must have a reason or cause—was a cornerstone of Leibniz’s and Spinoza’s metaphysics. How does contingency and freedom fit into such a world? For some, the worry was primarily scientific (Descartes). Given that a proper understanding of the physical world is one in which all physical objects are governed by deterministic laws of nature, how does contingency and freedom fit into such a world? Of course, for some, all three worries were in play in their work (this is true especially of Leibniz).

Despite many disagreements about how best to solve these worries, there were three claims that were widely, although not universally, agreed upon. The first was that free will has two aspects: the freedom to do otherwise and the power of self-determination. The second is that an adequate account of free will must entail that free agents are morally responsible agents and/or fit subjects for punishment. Ideas about moral responsibility were often a yard stick by which analyses of free will were measured, with critics objecting to an analysis of free will by arguing that agents who satisfied the analysis would not, intuitively, be morally responsible for their actions. The third is that compatibilism—the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism—is true. (Spinoza, Reid, and Kant are the clear exceptions to this, though some also see Descartes as an incompatibilist [Ragland 2006].)

Since a detailed discussion of these philosophers’ accounts of free will would take us too far afield, we want instead to focus on isolating a two-step strategy for defending compatibilism that emerges in the early modern period and continued to exert considerable force into the early twentieth century (and perhaps is still at work today). Advocates of this two-step strategy have come to be known as “classical compatibilists”. The first step was to argue that the contrary of freedom is not determinism but external constraint on doing what one wants to do. For example, Hobbes contends that liberty is “the absence of all the impediments to action that are not contained in the nature and intrinsical quality of the agent” (Hobbes 1654 [1999], 38; cf. Hume 1748 [1975] VIII.1; Edwards 1754 [1957]; Ayer 1954). This idea led many compatibilists, especially the more empiricist-inclined, to develop desire- or preference-based analyses of both the freedom to do otherwise and self-determination. An agent has the freedom to do otherwise than \(\phi\) just in case if she preferred or willed to do otherwise, she would have done otherwise (Hobbes 1654 [1999], 16; Locke 1690 [1975]) II.xx.8; Hume 1748 [1975] VIII.1; Moore 1912; Ayer 1954). The freedom to do otherwise does not require that you are able to act contrary to your strongest motivation but simply that your action be dependent on your strongest motivation in the sense that had you desired something else more strongly, then you would have pursued that alternative end. (We will discuss this analysis in more detail below in section 2.2.) Similarly, an agent self-determines her \(\phi\)-ing just in case \(\phi\) is caused by her strongest desires or preferences at the time of action (Hobbes 1654 [1999]; Locke 1690 [1975]; Edwards 1754 [1957]). (We will discuss this analysis in more detail below in section 2.4.) Given these analyses, determinism seems innocuous to freedom.

The second step was to argue that any attempt to analyze free will in a way that putatively captures a deeper or more robust sense of freedom leads to intractable conundrums. The most important examples of this attempt to capture a deeper sense of freedom in the modern period are Immanuel Kant (1781 [1998], 1785 [1998], 1788 [2015]) and Thomas Reid (1788 [1969]) and in the early twentieth century C. A. Campbell (1951). These philosophers argued that the above compatibilist analyses of the freedom to do otherwise and self-determination are, at best, insufficient for free will, and, at worst, incompatible with it. With respect to the classical compatibilist analysis of the freedom to do otherwise, these critics argued that the freedom to do otherwise requires not just that an agent could have acted differently if he had willed differently, but also that he could have willed differently. Free will requires more than free action. With respect to classical compatibilists’ analysis of self-determination, they argued that self-determination requires that the agent—rather than his desires, preferences, or any other mental state—cause his free choices and actions. Reid explains:

I consider the determination of the will as an effect. This effect must have a cause which had the power to produce it; and the cause must be either the person himself, whose will it is, or some other being…. If the person was the cause of that determination of his own will, he was free in that action, and it is justly imputed to him, whether it be good or bad. But, if another being was the cause of this determination, either producing it immediately, or by means and instruments under his direction, then the determination is the act and deed of that being, and is solely imputed to him. (1788 [1969] IV.i, 265)

Classical compatibilists argued that both claims are incoherent. While it is intelligible to ask whether a man willed to do what he did, it is incoherent to ask whether a man willed to will what he did:

For to ask whether a man is at liberty to will either motion or rest, speaking or silence, which he pleases, is to ask whether a man can will what he wills , or be pleased with what he is pleased with? A question which, I think, needs no answer; and they who make a question of it must suppose one will to determine the acts of another, and another to determine that, and so on in infinitum . (Locke 1690 [1975] II.xx.25; cf. Hobbes 1656 [1999], 72)

In response to libertarians’ claim that self-determination requires that the agent, rather than his motives, cause his actions, it was objected that this removes the agent from the natural causal order, which is clearly unintelligible for human animals (Hobbes 1654 [1999], 38). It is important to recognize that an implication of the second step of the strategy is that free will is not only compatible with determinism but actually requires determinism (cf. Hume 1748 [1975] VIII). This was a widely shared assumption among compatibilists up through the mid-twentieth century.

Spinoza’s Ethics (1677 [1992]) is an important departure from the above dialectic. He endorses a strong form of necessitarianism in which everything is categorically necessary as opposed to the conditional necessity embraced by most compatibilists, and he contends that there is no room in such a world for divine or creaturely free will. Thus, Spinoza is a free will skeptic. Interestingly, Spinoza is also keen to deny that the nonexistence of free will has the dire implications often assumed. As noted above, many in the modern period saw belief in free will and an afterlife in which God rewards the just and punishes the wicked as necessary to motivate us to act morally. According to Spinoza, so far from this being necessary to motivate us to be moral, it actually distorts our pursuit of morality. True moral living, Spinoza thinks, sees virtue as its own reward (Part V, Prop. 42). Moreover, while free will is a chimera, humans are still capable of freedom or self-determination. Such self-determination, which admits of degrees on Spinoza’s view, arises when our emotions are determined by true ideas about the nature of reality. The emotional lives of the free persons are ones in which “we desire nothing but that which must be, nor, in an absolute sense, can we find contentment in anything but truth. And so in so far as we rightly understand these matters, the endeavor of the better part of us is in harmony with the order of the whole of Nature” (Part IV, Appendix). Spinoza is an important forerunner to the many free will skeptics in the twentieth century, a position that continues to attract strong support (see Strawson 1986; Double 1992; Smilansky 2000; Pereboom 2001, 2014; Levy 2011; Waller 2011; Caruso 2012; Vilhauer 2012. For further discussion see the entry skepticism about moral responsibility ).

It is worth observing that in many of these disputes about the nature of free will there is an underlying dispute about the nature of moral responsibility. This is seen clearly in Hobbes (1654 [1999]) and early twentieth century philosophers’ defenses of compatibilism. Underlying the belief that free will is incompatible with determinism is the thought that no one would be morally responsible for any actions in a deterministic world in the sense that no one would deserve blame or punishment. Hobbes responded to this charge in part by endorsing broadly consequentialist justifications of blame and punishment: we are justified in blaming or punishing because these practices deter future harmful actions and/or contribute to reforming the offender (1654 [1999], 24–25; cf. Schlick 1939; Nowell-Smith 1948; Smart 1961). While many, perhaps even most, compatibilists have come to reject this consequentialist approach to moral responsibility in the wake of P. F. Strawson’s 1962 landmark essay ‘Freedom and Resentment’ (though see Vargas (2013) and McGeer (2014) for contemporary defenses of compatibilism that appeal to forward-looking considerations) there is still a general lesson to be learned: disputes about free will are often a function of underlying disputes about the nature and value of moral responsibility.

2. The Nature of Free Will

As should be clear from this short discussion of the history of the idea of free will, free will has traditionally been conceived of as a kind of power to control one’s choices and actions. When an agent exercises free will over her choices and actions, her choices and actions are up to her . But up to her in what sense? As should be clear from our historical survey, two common (and compatible) answers are: (i) up to her in the sense that she is able to choose otherwise, or at minimum that she is able not to choose or act as she does, and (ii) up to her in the sense that she is the source of her action. However, there is widespread controversy both over whether each of these conditions is required for free will and if so, how to understand the kind or sense of freedom to do otherwise or sourcehood that is required. While some seek to resolve these controversies in part by careful articulation of our experiences of deliberation, choice, and action (Nozick 1981, ch. 4; van Inwagen 1983, ch. 1), many seek to resolve these controversies by appealing to the nature of moral responsibility. The idea is that the kind of control or sense of up-to-meness involved in free will is the kind of control or sense of up-to-meness relevant to moral responsibility (Double 1992, 12; Ekstrom 2000, 7–8; Smilansky 2000, 16; Widerker and McKenna 2003, 2; Vargas 2007, 128; Nelkin 2011, 151–52; Levy 2011, 1; Pereboom 2014, 1–2). Indeed, some go so far as to define ‘free will’ as ‘the strongest control condition—whatever that turns out to be—necessary for moral responsibility’ (Wolf 1990, 3–4; Fischer 1994, 3; Mele 2006, 17). Given this connection, we can determine whether the freedom to do otherwise and the power of self-determination are constitutive of free will and, if so, in what sense, by considering what it takes to be a morally responsible agent. On these latter characterizations of free will, understanding free will is inextricably linked to, and perhaps even derivative from, understanding moral responsibility. And even those who demur from this claim regarding conceptual priority typically see a close link between these two ideas. Consequently, to appreciate the current debates surrounding the nature of free will, we need to say something about the nature of moral responsibility.

It is now widely accepted that there are different species of moral responsibility. It is common (though not uncontroversial) to distinguish moral responsibility as answerability from moral responsibility as attributability from moral responsibility as accountability (Watson 1996; Fischer and Tognazzini 2011; Shoemaker 2011. See Smith (2012) for a critique of this taxonomy). These different species of moral responsibility differ along three dimensions: (i) the kind of responses licensed toward the responsible agent, (ii) the nature of the licensing relation, and (iii) the necessary and sufficient conditions for licensing the relevant kind of responses toward the agent. For example, some argue that when an agent is morally responsible in the attributability sense, certain judgments about the agent—such as judgments concerning the virtues and vices of the agent—are fitting , and that the fittingness of such judgments does not depend on whether the agent in question possessed the freedom to do otherwise (cf. Watson 1996).

While keeping this controversy about the nature of moral responsibility firmly in mind (see the entry on moral responsibility for a more detailed discussion of these issues), we think it is fair to say that the most commonly assumed understanding of moral responsibility in the historical and contemporary discussion of the problem of free will is moral responsibility as accountability in something like the following sense:

An agent \(S\) is morally accountable for performing an action \(\phi\) \(=_{df.}\) \(S\) deserves praise if \(\phi\) goes beyond what can be reasonably expected of \(S\) and \(S\) deserves blame if \(\phi\) is morally wrong.

The central notions in this definition are praise , blame , and desert . The majority of contemporary philosophers have followed Strawson (1962) in contending that praising and blaming an agent consist in experiencing (or at least being disposed to experience (cf. Wallace 1994, 70–71)) reactive attitudes or emotions directed toward the agent, such as gratitude, approbation, and pride in the case of praise, and resentment, indignation, and guilt in the case of blame. (See Sher (2006) and Scanlon (2008) for important dissents from this trend. See the entry on blame for a more detailed discussion.) These emotions, in turn, dispose us to act in a variety of ways. For example, blame disposes us to respond with some kind of hostility toward the blameworthy agent, such as verbal rebuke or partial withdrawal of good will. But while these kinds of dispositions are essential to our blaming someone, their manifestation is not: it is possible to blame someone with very little change in attitudes or actions toward the agent. Blaming someone might be immediately followed by forgiveness as an end of the matter.

By ‘desert’, we have in mind what Derk Pereboom has called basic desert :

The desert at issue here is basic in the sense that the agent would deserve to be blamed or praised just because she has performed the action, given an understanding of its moral status, and not, for example, merely by virtue of consequentialist or contractualist considerations. (2014, 2)

As we understand desert, if an agent deserves blame, then we have a strong pro tanto reason to blame him simply in virtue of his being accountable for doing wrong. Importantly, these reasons can be outweighed by other considerations. While an agent may deserve blame, it might, all things considered, be best to forgive him unconditionally instead.

When an agent is morally responsible for doing something wrong, he is blame worthy : he deserves hard treatment marked by resentment and indignation and the actions these emotions dispose us toward, such as censure, rebuke, and ostracism. However, it would seem unfair to treat agents in these ways unless their actions were up to them . Thus, we arrive at the core connection between free will and moral responsibility: agents deserve praise or blame only if their actions are up to them—only if they have free will. Consequently, we can assess analyses of free will by their implications for judgments of moral responsibility. We note that some might reject the claim that free will is necessary for moral responsibility (e.g., Frankfurt 1971; Stump 1988), but even for these theorists an adequate analysis of free will must specify a sufficient condition for the kind of control at play in moral responsibility.

In what follows, we focus our attention on the two most commonly cited features of free will: the freedom to do otherwise and sourcehood. While some seem to think that free will consists exclusively in either the freedom to do otherwise (van Inwagen 2008) or in sourcehood (Zagzebski 2000), many philosophers hold that free will involves both conditions—though philosophers often emphasize one condition over the other depending on their dialectical situation or argumentative purposes (cf. Watson 1987). In what follows, we will describe the most common characterizations of these two conditions.

For most newcomers to the problem of free will, it will seem obvious that an action is up to an agent only if she had the freedom to do otherwise. But what does this freedom come to? The freedom to do otherwise is clearly a modal property of agents, but it is controversial just what species of modality is at stake. It must be more than mere possibility : to have the freedom to do otherwise consists in more than the mere possibility of something else’s happening. A more plausible and widely endorsed understanding claims the relevant modality is ability or power (Locke 1690 [1975], II.xx; Reid 1788 [1969], II.i–ii; D. Locke 1973; Clarke 2009; Vihvelin 2013). But abilities themselves seem to come in different varieties (Lewis 1976; Horgan 1979; van Inwagen 1983, ch. 1; Mele 2003; Clarke 2009; Vihvelin 2013, ch. 1; Franklin 2015; Cyr and Swenson 2019; Hofmann 2022; Whittle 2022), so a claim that an agent has ‘the ability to do otherwise’ is potentially ambiguous or indeterminate; in philosophical discussion, the sense of ability appealed to needs to be spelled out. A satisfactory account of the freedom to do otherwise owes us both an account of the kind of ability in terms of which the freedom to do otherwise is analyzed, and an argument for why this kind of ability (as opposed to some other species) is the one constitutive of the freedom to do otherwise. As we will see, philosophers sometimes leave this second debt unpaid.

The contemporary literature takes its cue from classical compatibilism’s recognized failure to deliver a satisfactory analysis of the freedom to do otherwise. As we saw above, classical compatibilists (Hobbes 1654 [1999], 1656 [1999]; Locke 1690 [1975]; Hume 1740 [1978], 1748 [1975]; Edwards 1754 [1957]; Moore 1912; Schlick 1939; Ayer 1954) sought to analyze the freedom to do otherwise in terms of a simple conditional analysis of ability:

Simple Conditional Analysis: An agent \(S\) has the ability to do otherwise if and only if, were \(S\) to choose to do otherwise, then \(S\) would do otherwise.

Part of the attraction of this analysis is that it obviously reconciles the freedom to do otherwise with determinism. While the truth of determinism entails that one’s action is inevitable given the past and laws of nature, there is nothing about determinism that implies that if one had chosen otherwise, then one would not do otherwise.

There are two problems with the Simple Conditional Analysis . The first is that it is, at best, an analysis of free action, not free will (cf. Reid 1788 [1969]; Chisholm 1966; 1976, ch. 2; Lehrer 1968, 1976). It only tells us when an agent has the ability to do otherwise, not when an agent has the ability to choose to do otherwise. One might be tempted to think that there is an easy fix along the following lines:

Simple Conditional Analysis*: An agent \(S\) has the ability to choose otherwise if and only if, were \(S\) to desire or prefer to choose otherwise, then \(S\) would choose otherwise.

The problem is that we often fail to choose to do things we want to choose, even when it appears that we had the ability to choose otherwise (one might think the same problem attends the original analysis). Suppose that, in deciding how to spend my evening, I have a desire to choose to read and a desire to choose to watch a movie. Suppose that I choose to read. By all appearances, I had the ability to choose to watch a movie. And yet, according to the Simple Conditional Analysis* , I lack this freedom, since the conditional ‘if I were to desire to choose to watch a movie, then I would choose to watch a movie’ is false. I do desire to choose to watch a movie and yet I do not choose to watch a movie. It is unclear how to remedy this problem. On the one hand, we might refine the antecedent by replacing ‘desire’ with ‘strongest desire’ (cf. Hobbes 1654 [1999], 1656 [1999]; Edwards 1754 [1957]). The problem is that this assumes, implausibly, that we always choose what we most strongly desire (for criticisms of this view see Reid 1788 [1969]; Campbell 1951; Wallace 1999; Holton 2009). On the other hand, we might refine the consequent by replacing ‘would choose to do otherwise’ with either ‘would probably choose to do otherwise’ or ‘might choose to do otherwise’. But each of these proposals is also problematic. If ‘probably’ means ‘more likely than not’, then this revised conditional still seems too strong: it seems possible to have the ability to choose otherwise even when one’s so choosing is unlikely. If we opt for ‘might’, then the relevant sense of modality needs to be spelled out.

Even if there are fixes to these problems, there is a yet deeper problem with these analyses. There are some agents who clearly lack the freedom to do otherwise and yet satisfy the conditional at the heart of these analyses. That is, although these agents lack the freedom to do otherwise, it is, for example, true of them that if they chose otherwise, they would do otherwise. Picking up on an argument developed by Keith Lehrer (1968; cf. Campbell 1951; Broad 1952; Chisholm 1966), consider an agoraphobic, Luke, who, when faced with the prospect of entering an open space, is subject not merely to an irresistible desire to refrain from intentionally going outside, but an irresistible desire to refrain from even choosing to go outside. Given Luke’s psychology, there is no possible world in which he suffers from his agoraphobia and chooses to go outside. It may well nevertheless be true that if Luke chose to go outside, then he would have gone outside. After all, any possible world in which he chooses to go outside will be a world in which he no longer suffers (to the same degree) from his agoraphobia, and thus we have no reason to doubt that in those worlds he would go outside as a result of his choosing to go outside. The same kind of counterexample applies with equal force to the conditional ‘if \(S\) desired to choose otherwise, then \(S\) would choose otherwise’.

While simple conditional analyses admirably make clear the species of ability to which they appeal, they fail to show that this species of ability is constitutive of the freedom to do otherwise. Agents need a stronger ability to do otherwise than characterized by such simple conditionals. Some argue that the fundamental source of the above problems is the conditional nature of these analyses (Campbell 1951; Austin 1961; Chisholm 1966; Lehrer 1976; van Inwagen 1983, ch. 4). The sense of ability relevant to the freedom to do otherwise is the ‘all-in sense’—that is, holding everything fixed up to the time of the decision or action—and this sense, so it is argued, can only be captured by a categorical analysis of the ability to do otherwise:

Categorical Analysis: An agent \(S\) has the ability to choose or do otherwise than \(\phi\) at time \(t\) if and only if it was possible, holding fixed everything up to \(t\), that \(S\) choose or do otherwise than \(\phi\) at \(t\).

This analysis gets the right verdict in Luke’s case. He lacks the ability to do otherwise than refrain from choosing to go outside, according to this analysis, because there is no possible world in which he suffers from his agoraphobia and yet chooses to go outside. Unlike the above conditional analyses, the Categorical Analysis requires that we hold fixed Luke’s agoraphobia when considering alternative possibilities.

If the Categorical Analysis is correct, then free will is incompatible with determinism. According to the thesis of determinism, all deterministic possible worlds with the same pasts and laws of nature have the same futures (Lewis 1979; van Inwagen 1983, 3). Suppose John is in deterministic world \(W\) and refrains from raising his hand at time \(t\). Since \(W\) is deterministic, it follows that any possible world \(W^*\) that has the same past and laws up to \(t\) must have the same future, including John’s refraining from raising his hand at \(t\). Therefore, John lacked the ability, and thus freedom, to raise his hand.

This argument, carefully articulated in the late 1960s and early 1970s by Carl Ginet (1966, 1990) and Peter van Inwagen (1975, 1983) and refined in important ways by John Martin Fischer (1994), has come to be known as the Consequence Argument. van Inwagen offers the following informal statement of the argument:

If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born [i.e., we do not have the ability to change the past], and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are [i.e., we do not have the ability to break the laws of nature]. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us. (van Inwagen 1983, 16; cf. Fischer 1994, ch. 1)

Like the Simple Conditional Analysis , a virtue of the Categorical Analysis is that it spells out clearly the kind of ability appealed to in its analysis of the freedom to do otherwise, but like the Simple Conditional Analysis , critics have argued that the sense of ability it captures is not the sense at the heart of free will. The objection here, though, is not that the analysis is too permissive or weak, but rather that it is too restrictive or strong.

While there have been numerous different replies along these lines (e.g., Lehrer 1980; Slote 1982; Watson 1986. See the entry on arguments for incompatibilism for a more extensive discussion of and bibliography for the Consequence Argument), the most influential of these objections is due to David Lewis (1981). Lewis contended that van Inwagen’s argument equivocated on ‘is able to break a law of nature’. We can distinguish two senses of ‘is able to break a law of nature’:

(Weak Thesis) I am able to do something such that, if I did it, a law of nature would be broken.

(Strong Thesis) I am able to do something such that, if I did it, it would constitute a law of nature’s being broken or would cause a law of nature to be broken.

If we are committed to the Categorical Analysis , then those desiring to defend compatibilism seem to be committed to the sense of ability in ‘is able to break a law of nature’ along the lines of the strong thesis. Lewis agrees with van Inwagen that it is “incredible” to think humans have such an ability (Lewis 1981, 113), but maintains that compatibilists need only appeal to the ability to break a law of nature in the weak sense. While it is absurd to think that humans are able to do something that is a violation of a law of nature or causes a law of nature to be broken, there is nothing incredible, so Lewis claimed, in thinking that humans are able to do something such that if they did it, a law of nature would be broken. In essence, Lewis is arguing that incompatibilists like van Inwagen have failed to adequately motivate the restrictiveness of the Categorical Analysis .

Some incompatibilists have responded to Lewis by contending that even the weak ability is incredible (van Inwagen 2004). But there is a different and often overlooked problem for Lewis: the weak ability seems to be too weak. Returning to the case of John’s refraining from raising his hand, Lewis maintains that the following three propositions are consistent:

One might think that (ii) and (iii) are incompatible with (i). Consider again Luke, our agoraphobic. Suppose that his agoraphobia affects him in such a way that he will only intentionally go outside if he chooses to go outside, and yet his agoraphobia makes it impossible for him to make this choice. In this case, a necessary condition for Luke’s intentionally going outside is his choosing to go outside. Moreover, Luke is not able to choose or cause himself to choose to go outside. Intuitively, this would seem to imply that Luke lacks the freedom to go outside. But this implication does not follow for Lewis. From the fact that Luke is able to go outside only if he chooses to go outside and the fact that Luke is not able to choose to go outside, it does not follow , on Lewis’s account, that Luke lacks the ability to go outside. Consequently, Lewis’s account fails to explain why Luke lacks the ability to go outside (cf. Speak 2011). (For other important criticisms of Lewis, see Ginet [1990, ch. 5] and Fischer [1994, ch. 4].)

While Lewis may be right that the Categorical Analysis is too restrictive, his argument, all by itself, doesn’t seem to establish this. His argument is successful only if (a) he can provide an alternative analysis of ability that entails that Luke’s agoraphobia robs him of the ability to go outside and (b) does not entail that determinism robs John of the ability to raise his hand (cf. Pendergraft 2010). Lewis must point out a principled difference between these two cases. As should be clear from the above, the Simple Conditional Analysis is of no help. However, some recent work by Michael Smith (2003), Kadri Vihvelin (2004; 2013), and Michael Fara (2008) have attempted to fill this gap. What unites these theorists—whom Clarke (2009) has called the ‘new dispositionalists’—is their attempt to appeal to recent advances in the metaphysics of dispositions to arrive at a revised conditional analysis of the freedom to do otherwise. The most perspicuous of these accounts is offered by Vihvelin (2004), who argues that an agent’s having the ability to do otherwise is solely a function of the agent’s intrinsic properties. (It is important to note that Vihvelin [2013] has come to reject the view that free will consists exclusively in the kind of ability analyzed below.) Building on Lewis’s work on the metaphysics of dispositions, she arrives at the following analysis of ability:

Revised Conditional Analysis of Ability : \(S\) has the ability at time \(t\) to do \(X\) iff, for some intrinsic property or set of properties \(B\) that \(S\) has at \(t\), for some time \(t'\) after \(t\), if \(S\) chose (decided, intended, or tried) at \(t\) to do \(X\), and \(S\) were to retain \(B\) until \(t'\), \(S\)’s choosing (deciding, intending, or trying) to do \(X\) and \(S\)’s having \(B\) would jointly be an \(S\)-complete cause of \(S\)’s doing \(X\). (Vihvelin 2004, 438)

Lewis defines an ‘\(S\)-complete cause’ as “a cause complete insofar as havings of properties intrinsic to [\(S\)] are concerned, though perhaps omitting some events extrinsic to [\(S\)]” (cf. Lewis 1997, 156). In other words, an \(S\)-complete cause of \(S\)’s doing \(\phi\) requires that \(S\) possess all the intrinsic properties relevant to \(S\)’s causing \(S\)’s doing \(\phi\). This analysis appears to afford Vihvelin the basis for a principled difference between agoraphobics and merely determined agents. We must hold fixed an agent’s phobias since they are intrinsic properties of agents, but we need not hold fixed the laws of nature because these are not intrinsic properties of agents. (It should be noted that the assumption that intrinsic properties are wholly separable from the laws of nature is disputed by ‘dispositional essentialists.’ See the entry on metaphysics of causation .) Vihvelin’s analysis appears to be restrictive enough to exclude phobics from having the freedom to do otherwise, but permissive enough to allow that some agents in deterministic worlds have the freedom to do otherwise.

But appearances can be deceiving. The new dispositionalist claims have received some serious criticism, with the majority of the criticisms maintaining that these analyses are still too permissive (Clarke 2009; Whittle 2010; Franklin 2011b). For example, Randolph Clarke argues that Vihvelin’s analysis fails to overcome the original problem with the Simple Conditional Analysis . He writes, “A phobic agent might, on some occasion, be unable to choose to A and unable to A without so choosing, while retaining all that she would need to implement such a choice, should she make it. Despite lacking the ability to choose to A , the agent might have some set of intrinsic properties B such that, if she chose to A and retained B , then her choosing to A and her having B would jointly be an agent-complete cause of her A -ing” (Clarke 2009, p. 329).

The Categorical Analysis , and thus incompatibilism about free will and determinism, remains an attractive option for many philosophers precisely because it seems that compatibilists have yet to furnish an analysis of the freedom to do otherwise that implies that phobics clearly lack the ability to choose or do otherwise that is relevant to moral responsibility and yet some merely determined agents have this ability.

Some have tried to avoid these lingering problems for compatibilists by arguing that the freedom to do otherwise is not required for free will or moral responsibility. What matters for an agent’s freedom and responsibility, so it is argued, is the source of her action—how her action was brought about. The most prominent strategy for defending this move appeals to ‘Frankfurt-style cases’. In a ground-breaking article, Harry Frankfurt (1969) presented a series of thought experiments intended to show that it is possible that agents are morally responsible for their actions and yet they lack the ability to do otherwise. While Frankfurt (1971) took this to show that moral responsibility and free will come apart—free will requires the ability to do otherwise but moral responsibility does not—if we define ‘free will’ as ‘the strongest control condition required for moral responsibility’ (cf. Wolf 1990, 3–4; Fischer 1994, 3; Mele 2006, 17), then if Frankfurt-style cases show that moral responsibility does not require the ability to do otherwise, then they also show that free will does not require the ability to do otherwise. Let us consider this challenge in more detail.

Here is a representative Frankfurt-style case:

Imagine, if you will, that Black is a quite nifty (and even generally nice) neurosurgeon. But in performing an operation on Jones to remove a brain tumor, Black inserts a mechanism into Jones’s brain which enables Black to monitor and control Jones’s activities. Jones, meanwhile, knows nothing of this. Black exercises this control through a sophisticated computer which he has programmed so that, among other things, it monitors Jones’s voting behavior. If Jones were to show any inclination to vote for Bush, then the computer, through the mechanism in Jones’s brain, intervenes to ensure that he actually decides to vote for Clinton and does so vote. But if Jones decides on his own to vote for Clinton, the computer does nothing but continue to monitor—without affecting—the goings-on in Jones’s head. (Fischer 2006, 38)

Fischer goes on to suppose that Jones “decides to vote for Clinton on his own”, without any interference from Black, and maintains that in such a case Jones is morally responsible for his decision. Fischer draws two interrelated conclusions from this case. The first, negative conclusion, is that the ability to do otherwise is not necessary for moral responsibility. Jones is unable to refrain from deciding to vote for Clinton, and yet, so long as Jones decides to vote for Clinton on his own, his decision is free and one for which he is morally responsible. The second, positive conclusion, is that freedom and responsibility are functions of the actual sequence . What matters for an agent’s freedom and moral responsibility is not what might have happened, but how his action was actually brought about. What matters is not whether the agent had the ability to do otherwise, but whether he was the source of his actions.

The success of Frankfurt-style cases is hotly contested. An early and far-reaching criticism is due to David Widerker (1995), Carl Ginet (1996), and Robert Kane (1996, 142–43). According to this criticism, proponents of Frankfurt-style cases face a dilemma: either these cases assume that the connection between the indicator (in our case, the absence of Jones’s showing any inclination to decide to vote for Bush) and the agent’s decision (here, Jones’s deciding to vote for Clinton) is deterministic or not. If the connection is deterministic, then Frankfurt-style cases cannot be expected to convince incompatibilists that the ability to do otherwise is not necessary for moral responsibility and/or free will, since Jones’s action will be deterministically brought about by factors beyond his control, leading incompatibilists to conclude that Jones is not morally responsible for his decision. But if the connection is nondeterministic, then it is possible even in the absence of showing any inclination to decide to vote for Bush, that Jones decides to vote for Bush, and so he retains the ability to do otherwise. Either way Frankfurt-style cases fail to show that Jones is both morally responsible for his decision and yet is unable to do otherwise.

While some have argued that even Frankfurt-style cases that assume determinism are effective (see, e.g., Fischer 1999, 2010, 2013 and Haji and McKenna 2004 and for criticisms of this approach, see Goetz 2005, Palmer 2005, 2014, Widerker and Goetz 2013, and Cohen 2017), the majority of proponents of Frankfurt-style cases have attempted to revise these cases so that they are explicitly nondeterministic and yet still show that the agent was morally responsible even though he lacked the ability to do otherwise—or, at least that he lacked any ability to do otherwise that could be relevant to grounding the agent’s moral responsibility (see, e.g., Mele and Robb 1998, 2003, Pereboom 2001, 2014, McKenna 2003, Hunt 2005, and for criticisms of these cases see Ginet 2002, Timpe 2006, Widerker 2006, Franklin 2011c, Moya 2011, Palmer 2011, 2013, Robinson 2014, Capes 2016, Capes and Swenson 2017, and Elzein 2017).

Supposing that Frankfurt-style cases are successful, what exactly do they show? In our view, they show neither that free will and moral responsibility do not require an ability to do otherwise in any sense nor that compatibilism is true. Frankfurt-style cases are of clear help to the compatibilists’ position (though see Speak 2007 for a dissenting opinion). The Consequence Argument raises a powerful challenge to the cogency of compatibilism. But if Frankfurt-style cases are successful, agents can act freely in the sense relevant to moral responsibility while lacking the ability to do otherwise in the all-in sense. This allows compatibilists to concede that the all-in ability to do otherwise is incompatible with determinism, and yet insist that it is irrelevant to the question of the compatibility of determinism with moral responsibility (and perhaps even free will, depending on how we define this) (cf. Fischer 1987, 1994. For a challenge to the move from not strictly necessary to irrelevant, see O’Connor [2000, 20–22] and in reply, Fischer [2006, 152–56].). But, of course, showing that an argument for the falsity of compatibilism is irrelevant does not show that compatibilism is true. Indeed, many incompatibilists maintain that Frankfurt-style cases are successful and defend incompatibilism not via the Consequence Argument, but by way of arguments that attempt to show that agents in deterministic worlds cannot be the ‘source’ of their actions in the way that moral responsibility requires (Stump 1999; Zagzebski 2000; Pereboom 2001, 2014). Thus, if successful, Frankfurt-style cases would be at best the first step in defending compatibilism. The second step must offer an analysis of the kind of sourcehood constitutive of free will that entails that free will is compatible with determinism (cf. Fischer 1982).

Furthermore, while proponents of Frankfurt-style cases often maintain that these cases show that no ability to do otherwise is necessary for moral responsibility (“I have employed the Frankfurt-type example to argue that this sense of control [i.e. the one required for moral responsibility] need not involve any alternative possibilities” [Fischer 2006, p. 40; emphasis ours]), we believe that this conclusion overreaches. At best, Frankfurt-style cases show that the ability to do otherwise in the all-in sense —in the sense defined by the Categorical Analysis —is not necessary for free will or moral responsibility (cf. Franklin 2015). To appreciate this, let us assume that in the above Frankfurt-style case Jones lacks the ability to do otherwise in the all-in sense: there is no possible world in which we hold fixed the past and laws and yet Jones does otherwise, since all such worlds include Black and his preparations for preventing Jones from doing otherwise should Jones show any inclination. Even if this is all true, it should take only a little reflection to recognize that in this case Jones is able to do otherwise in certain weaker senses we might attach to that phrase, and compatibilists in fact still think that the ability to do otherwise in some such senses is necessary for free will and moral responsibility. Consequently, even though Frankfurt-style cases have, as a matter of fact, moved many compatibilists away from emphasizing ability to do otherwise to emphasizing sourcehood, we suggest that this move is best seen as a weakening of the ability-to-do-otherwise condition on moral responsibility (but see Cyr 2017 and Kittle 2019 for criticisms of this claim). (A potentially important exception to this claim is Sartorio [2016], who appealing to some controversial ideas in the metaphysics of causation appears to argue that no sense of the ability to do otherwise is necessary for control in the sense at stake for moral responsibility, but instead what matters is whether the agent is the cause of the action. We simply note that Sartorio’s account of causation is a modal one [see especially Sartorio (2016, 94–95, 132–37)] and thus it is far from clear that her account of freedom and responsibility is really an exception.)

In this section, we will assume that Frankfurt-style cases are successful in order to consider two prominent compatibilist attempts to construct analyses of the sourcehood condition (though see the entry on compatibilism for a more systematic survey of compatibilist theories of free will). The first, and perhaps most popular, compatibilist model is a reasons-responsiveness model. According to this model, an agent’s action \(\phi\) is free just in case the agent or manner in which the action is brought about is responsive to the reasons available to the agent at the time of action. While compatibilists develop this kind of account in different ways, the most detailed proposal is due to John Martin Fischer (1994, 2006, 2010, 2012; Fischer and Ravizza 1998. For similar compatibilist treatments of reasons-responsiveness, see Wolf 1990, Wallace 1994, Haji 1998, Nelkin 2011, McKenna 2013, Vargas 2013, Sartorio 2016). Fischer and Ravizza argue that an agent’s action is free and one for which he is morally responsible only if the mechanism that issued in the action is moderately reasons-responsive (Fischer and Ravizza 1998, ch. 3). By ‘mechanism’, Fischer and Ravizza simply mean “the way the action was brought about” (38). One mechanism they often discuss is practical deliberation. For example, in the case of Jones discussed above, his decision to vote for Clinton on his own was brought about by the process of practical deliberation. What must be true of this process, this mechanism, for it to be moderately reasons-responsive? Fischer and Ravizza maintain that moderate reasons-responsiveness consists in two conditions: reasons-receptivity and reasons-reactivity. A mechanism’s reasons-receptivity depends on the agent’s cognitive capacities, such as being capable of understanding moral reasons and the implications of their actions (69–73). The second condition is more important for us in the present context. A mechanism’s reasons-reactivity depends on how the mechanism would react given different reasons for action. Fischer and Ravizza argue that the kind of reasons-reactivity at stake is weak reasons-reactivity, where this merely requires that there is some possible world in which the laws of nature remain the same, the same mechanism operates, there is a sufficient reason to do otherwise, and the mechanism brings about the alternative action in response to this sufficient reason (73–76). On this analysis, while Jones, due to the activity of Black, lacks the ‘all-in’ sense of the ability to do otherwise, he is nevertheless morally responsible for deciding to vote for Clinton because his action finds its source in Jones’s practical deliberation that is moderately reasons-responsive.

Fischer and Ravizza’s theory of freedom and responsibility has shifted the focus of much recent debate to questions of sourcehood. Moreover, one might argue that this theory is a clear improvement over classical compatibilism with respect to handling cases of phobia. By focusing on mechanisms, Fischer and Ravizza can argue that our agoraphobic Luke is not morally responsible for deciding to refrain from going outside because the mechanism that issues in this action—namely his agoraphobia—is not moderately reasons-responsive. There is no world with the same laws of nature as our own, this mechanism operates, and yet it reacts to a sufficient reason to go outside. No matter what reasons there are for Luke to go outside, when acting on this mechanism, he will always refrain from going outside (cf. Fischer 1987, 74).

Before turning to our second compatibilist model, it is worth noting that it would be a mistake to think that Fischer and Ravizza’s account is a sourcehood account to the exclusion of the ability to do otherwise in any sense. As we have just seen, Fischer and Ravizza place clear modal requirements on mechanisms that issue in actions with respect to which agents are free and morally responsible. Indeed, this should be clear from the very idea of reasons-responsiveness. Whether one is responsive depends not merely on how one does respond, but also on how one would respond. Thus, any account that makes reasons-responsiveness an essential condition of free will is an account that makes the ability to do otherwise, in some sense, necessary for free will (Fischer [2018] concedes this point, though, as noted above, the reader should consider Sartorio [2016] as a potential counterexample to this claim).

The second main compatibilist model of sourcehood is an identification model. Accounts of sourcehood of this kind lay stress on self-determination or autonomy: to be the source of her action the agent must self-determine her action. Like the contemporary discussion of the ability to do otherwise, the contemporary discussion of the power of self-determination begins with the failure of classical compatibilism to produce an acceptable definition. According to classical compatibilists, self-determination simply consists in the agent’s action being determined by her strongest motive. On the assumption that some compulsive agents’ compulsions operate by generating irresistible desires to act in certain ways, the classical compatibilist analysis of self-determination implies that these compulsive actions are self-determined. While Hobbes seems willing to accept this implication (1656 [1999], 78), most contemporary compatibilists concede that this result is unacceptable.

Beginning with the work of Harry Frankfurt (1971) and Gary Watson (1975), many compatibilists have developed identification accounts of self-determination that attempt to draw a distinction between an agent’s desires or motives that are internal to the agent and those that are external. The idea is that while agents are not (or at least may not be) identical to any motivations (or bundle of motivations), they are identified with a subset of their motivations, rendering these motivations internal to the agent in such a way that any actions brought about by these motivations are self -determined. The identification relation is not an identity relation, but something weaker (cf. Bratman 2000, 39n12). What the precise nature of the identification relation is and to which attitudes an agent stands in this relation is hotly disputed. Lippert-Rasmussen (2003) helpfully divides identification accounts into two main types. The first are “authority” accounts, according to which agents are identified with attitudes that are authorized to speak for them (368). The second are authenticity accounts, according to which agents are identified with attitudes that reveal who they truly are (368). (But see Shoemaker 2015 for an ecumenical account of identification that blends these two accounts.) Proposed attitudes to which agents are said to stand in the identification relation include higher-order desires (Frankfurt 1971), cares or loves (Frankfurt 1993, 1994; Shoemaker 2003; Jaworska 2007; Sripada 2016), self-governing policies (Bratman 2000), the desire to make sense of oneself (Velleman 1992, 2009), and perceptions (or judgments) of the good (or best) (Watson 1975; Stump 1988; Ekstrom 1993; Mitchell-Yellin 2015).

The distinction between internal and external motivations allows identification theorists to enrich classical compatibilists’ understanding of constraint, while remaining compatibilists about free will and determinism. According to classical compatibilists, the only kind of constraint is external (e.g., broken cars and broken legs), but addictions and phobias seem just as threatening to free will. Identification theorists have the resources to concede that some constraints are internal. For example, they can argue that our agoraphobic Luke is not free in refraining from going outside even though this decision was caused by his strongest desires because he is not identified with his strongest desires. On compatibilist identification accounts, what matters for self-determination is not whether our actions are determined or undetermined, but whether they are brought about by motives with which the agent is identified: exercises of the power of self-determination consists in an agent’s actions being brought about, in part, by an agent’s motives with which she is identified. (It is important to note that while we have distinguished reasons-responsive accounts from identification accounts, there is nothing preventing one from combing both elements in a complete analysis of free will.)

Even if these reasons-responsive and identification compatibilist accounts of sourcehood might successfully side-step the Consequence Argument, they must come to grips with a second incompatibilist argument: the Manipulation Argument. The general problem raised by this line of argument is that whatever proposed compatibilist conditions for an agent \(S\)’s being free with respect to, and morally responsible for, some action \(\phi\), it will seem that agents can be manipulated into satisfying these conditions with respect to \(\phi\) and, yet, precisely because they are manipulated into satisfying these conditions, their freedom and responsibility seem undermined. The two most influential forms of the Manipulation Argument are Pereboom’s Four-case Argument (2001, ch. 4; 2014, ch. 4) and Mele’s Zygote Argument (2006, ch. 7. See Todd 2010, 2012 for developments of Mele’s argument). As the structure of Mele’s version is simpler, we will focus on it.

Imagine a goddess Diana who creates a zygote \(Z\) in Mary in some deterministic world. Suppose that Diana creates \(Z\) as she does because she wants Jones to be murdered thirty years later. From her knowledge of the laws of nature in her world and her knowledge of the state of the world just prior to her creating \(Z\), she knows that a zygote with precisely \(Z\)’s constitution located in Mary will develop into an agent Ernie who, thirty years later, will murder Jones as a result of his moderately reasons-responsive mechanism and on the basis of motivations with which he is identified (whatever those might be). Suppose Diana succeeds in her plan and Ernie murders Jones as a result of her manipulation.

Many judge that Ernie is not morally responsible for murdering Jones even though he satisfies both the reasons-responsive and identification criteria. There are two possible lines of reply open to compatibilists. On the soft-line reply, compatibilists attempt to show that there is a relevant difference between manipulated agents such as Ernie and agents who satisfy their account (McKenna 2008, 470). For example, Fischer and Ravizza propose a second condition on sourcehood: in addition to a mechanism’s being moderately reasons-responsive, an agent is morally responsible for the output of such a mechanism only if the agent has come to take responsibility for the mechanism, where an agent has taken responsibility for a mechanism \(M\) just in case (i) she believes that she is an agent when acting from \(M\), (ii) she believes that she is an apt target for blame and praise for acting from \(M\), and (iii) her beliefs specified in (i) and (ii) are “based, in an appropriate way, on [her] evidence” (Fischer and Ravizza 1998, 238). The problem with this reply is that we can easily imagine Diana creating Ernie so that his murdering Jones is a result not only of a moderately reasons-responsive mechanism, but also a mechanism for which he has taken responsibility. On the hard-line reply, compatibilists concede that, despite initial appearances, the manipulated agent is free and morally responsible and attempt to ameliorate the seeming counterintuitiveness of this concession (McKenna 2008, 470–71). Here compatibilists might point out that the idea of being manipulated is worrisome only so long as the manipulators are interfering with an agent’s development. But if the manipulators simply create a person, and then allow that person’s life to unfold without any further inference, the manipulators’ activity is no threat to freedom (McKenna 2008; Fischer 2011; Sartorio 2016, ch. 5). (For other responses to the Manipulation Argument, see Kearns 2012; Sripada 2012; McKenna 2014.)

Despite these compatibilist replies, to some the idea that the entirety of a free agent’s life can be determined, and in this way controlled, by another agent will seem incredible. Some take the lesson of the Manipulation Argument to be that no compatibilist account of sourcehood or self-determination is satisfactory. True sourcehood—the kind of sourcehood that can actually ground an agent’s freedom and responsibility—requires, so it is argued, that one’s action not be causally determined by factors beyond one’s control.

Libertarians, while united in endorsing this negative condition on sourcehood, are deeply divided concerning which further positive conditions may be required. It is important to note that while libertarians are united in insisting that compatibilist accounts of sourcehood are insufficient, they are not committed to thinking that the conditions of freedom spelled out in terms either of reasons-responsiveness or of identification are not necessary. For example, Stump (1988, 1996, 2010) builds a sophisticated libertarian model of free will out of resources originally developed within Frankfurt’s identification model (see also Ekstrom 1993, 2000; Franklin 2014) and nearly all libertarians agree that exercises of free will require agents to be reasons-responsive (e.g., Kane 1996; Clarke 2003, chs. 8–9; Franklin 2018, ch. 2). Moreover, while this section focuses on libertarian accounts of sourcehood, we remind readers that most (if not all) libertarians think that the freedom to do otherwise is also necessary for free will and moral responsibility.

There are three main libertarian options for understanding sourcehood or self-determination: non-causal libertarianism (Ginet 1990, 2008; McCann 1998; Lowe 2008; Goetz 2009; Pink 2017; Palmer 2021), event-causal libertarianism (Wiggins 1973; Kane 1996, 1999, 2011, 2016; Mele 1995, chs. 11–12; 2006, chs. 4–5; 2017; Ekstrom 2000, 2019; Clarke 2003, chs. 2–6; Franklin 2018), and agent-causal libertarianism (Reid 1788 [1969]; Chisholm 1966, 1976; Taylor 1966; O’Connor 2000; Clarke 1993; 1996; 2003, chs. 8–10; Griffith 2010; Steward 2012). Non-causal libertarians contend that exercises of the power of self-determination need not (or perhaps even cannot) be caused or causally structured. According to this view, we control our volition or choice simply in virtue of its being ours—its occurring in us. We do not exert a special kind of causality in bringing it about; instead, it is an intrinsically active event, intrinsically something we do . While there may be causal influences upon our choice, there need not be, and any such causal influence is wholly irrelevant to understanding why it occurs. Reasons provide an autonomous, non-causal form of explanation. Provided our choice is not wholly determined by prior factors, it is free and under our control simply in virtue of being ours. Non-causal views have failed to garner wide support among libertarians since, for many, self- determination seems to be an essentially causal notion (cf. Mele 2000 and Clarke 2003, ch. 2). This dispute hinges on the necessary conditions on the concept of causal power, and relatedly on whether power simpliciter admits causal and non-causal variants. For discussion, see O’Connor (2021).

Most libertarians endorse an event-causal or agent-causal account of sourcehood. Both these accounts maintain that exercises of the power of self-determination consist partly in the agent’s bringing about her choice or action, but they disagree on how to analyze an agent’s bringing about her choice . While event-causal libertarianism admits of different species, at the heart of this view is the idea that self-determining an action requires, at minimum, that the agent cause the action and that an agent’s causing his action is wholly reducible to mental states and other events involving the agent nondeviantly causing his action. Consider an agent’s raising his hand. According to the event-causal model at its most basic level, an agent’s raising his hand consists in the agent’s causing his hand to rise and his causing his hand to rise consists in apt mental states and events involving the agent—such as the agent’s desire to ask a question and his belief that he can ask a question by raising his hand— nondeviantly causing his hand to rise. (The nondeviance clause is required since it seems possible that an event be brought about by one’s desires and beliefs and yet not be self-determined, or even an action for that matter, due to the unusual causal path leading from the desires and beliefs to action. Imagine a would-be accomplice of an assassin believes that his dropping his cigarette is the signal for the assassin to shoot his intended victim and he desires to drop his cigarette and yet this belief and desire so unnerve him that he accidentally drops his cigarette. While the event of dropping the cigarette is caused by a relevant desire and belief it does not seem to be self-determined and perhaps is not even an action [cf. Davidson 1973].) To fully spell out this account, event-causal libertarians must specify which mental states and events are apt (cf. Brand 1979)—which mental states and events are the springs of self-determined actions—and what nondeviance consists in (cf. Bishop 1989). (We note that this has proven very difficult, enough so that some take the problem to spell doom for event-causal theories of action. Such philosophers [e.g., Taylor 1966 and Sehon 2005] take agential power to be conceptually and/or ontologically primitive and understand reasons explanations of action in irreducibly teleological terms. See Stout 2010 for a brisk survey of discussions of this topic.) For ease, in what follows we will assume that apt mental states are an agent’s reasons that favor the action.

Event-causal libertarians, of course, contend that self-determination requires more than nondeviant causation by agents’ reasons: for it is possible that agents’ actions in deterministic worlds are nondeviantly caused by apt mental states and events. Self-determination requires nondeterministic causation, in a nondeviant way, by an agent’s reasons. While historically many have thought that nondeterministic causation is impossible (Hobbes 1654 [1999], 1656 [1999]; Hume 1740 [1978], 1748 [1975]), with the advent of quantum physics and, from a very different direction, an influential essay by G.E.M. Anscombe (1971), it is now widely assumed that nondeterministic (or probabilistic) causation is possible. There are two importantly different ways to understand nondeterministic causation: as the causation of probability or as the probability of causation. Under the causation of probability model, a nondeterministic cause \(C\) causes (or causally contributes to) the objective probability of the outcome’s occurring rather than the outcome itself. On this account, \(S\)’s reasons do not cause his decision but there being a certain antecedent objective probability of its occurring, and the decision itself is uncaused. On the competing probability of causation model, a nondeterministic cause \(C\) causes the outcome of a nondeterministic process. Given that \(C\) is a nondeterministic cause of the outcome, it was possible given the exact same past and laws of nature that \(C\) not cause the outcome (perhaps because it was possible that some other event cause some other outcome)—the probability of this causal transaction’s occurring was less than \(1\). Given that event-causal libertarians maintain that self-determined actions, and thus free actions, must be caused, they are committed to the probability of causation model of nondeterministic causation (cf. Franklin 2018, 25–26). (We note that Balaguer [2010] is skeptical of the above distinction, and it is thus unclear whether he should best be classified as a non-causal or event-causal libertarian, though see Balaguer [2014] for evidence that it is best to treat him as a non-causalist.) Consequently, according to event-causal libertarians, when an agent \(S\) self-determines his choice \(\phi\), then \(S\)’s reasons \(r_1\) nondeterministically cause (in a nondeviant way) \(\phi\), and it was possible, given the past and laws, that \(r_1\) not have caused \(\phi\), but rather some of \(S\)’s other reasons \(r_2\) nondeterministically caused (in a nondeviant way) a different action \(\psi\).

Agent-causal libertarians contend that the event-causal picture fails to capture self-determination, for it fails to accord the agent with a power to settle what she does. Pereboom offers a forceful statement of this worry:

On an event-causal libertarian picture, the relevant causal conditions antecedent to the decision, i.e., the occurrence of certain agent-involving events, do not settle whether the decision will occur, but only render the occurrence of the decision about \(50\%\) probable. In fact, because no occurrence of antecedent events settles whether the decision will occur, and only antecedent events are causally relevant, nothing settles whether the decision will occur. (Pereboom 2014, 32; cf. Watson 1987, 1996; Clarke 2003 [ch. 8], 2011; Griffith 2010; Shabo 2011, 2013; Steward 2012 [ch. 3]; and Schlosser 2014); and for critical assessment, see Clarke 2019.

On the event-causal picture, the agent’s causal contribution to her actions is exhausted by the causal contribution of her reasons, and yet her reasons leave open which decisions she will make, and this seems insufficient for self-determination.

But what more must be added? Agent-causal libertarians maintain that self-determination requires that the agent herself play a causal role over and above the causal role played by her reasons. Some agent-causal libertarians deny that an agent’s reasons play any direct causal role in bringing about an agent’s self-determined actions (Chisholm 1966; O’Connor 2000, ch. 5), whereas others allow or even require that self-determined actions be caused in part by the agent’s reasons (Clarke 2003, ch. 9; Steward 2012, ch. 3). But all agent-causal libertarians insist that exercises of the power of self-determination do not reduce to nondeterministic causation by apt mental states: agent-causation does not reduce to event-causation.

Agent-causal libertarianism seems to capture an aspect of self-determination that neither the above compatibilists accounts nor event-causal libertarian accounts capture. (Some compatibilists even accept this and try to incorporate agent-causation into a compatibilist understanding of free will. See Markosian 1999, 2012; Nelkin 2011.) These accounts reduce the causal role of the self to states and events to which the agent is not identical (even if he is identified with them). But how can self -determination of my actions wholly reduce to determination of my actions by things other than the self? Richard Taylor nicely expresses this intuition: “If I believe that something not identical to myself was the cause of my behavior—some event wholly external to myself, for instance, or even one internal to myself, such as a nerve impulse, volition, or whatnot—then I cannot regard the behavior as being an act of mine, unless I further believed that I was the cause of that external or internal event” (1974, 55; cf. Franklin 2016).

Despite its powerful intuitive pull for some, many have argued that agent-causal libertarianism is obscure or even incoherent. The stock objection used to be that the very idea of agent-causation—causation by agents that is not reducible to causation by mental states and events involving the agent—is incoherent, but this objection has become less common due to pioneering work by Chisholm (1966, 1976), Taylor (1974), O’Connor (2000, 2011), Clarke (2003), and Steward 2012, ch. 8). More common objections now concern, first, how to understand the relationship between agent-causation and an agent’s reasons (or motivations in general), and, second, the empirical adequacy of agent-causal libertarianism. With respect to the first worry, it is widely assumed that the only (or at least best) way to understand reasons-explanation and motivational influence is within a causal account of reasons, where reasons cause our actions (Davidson 1963; Mele 1992). If agent-causal libertarians accept that self-determined actions, in addition to being agent-caused, must also be caused by agents’ reasons that favored those actions, then agent-causal libertarians need to explain how to integrate these causes (for a detailed attempt to do just this, see Clarke 2003, ch. 8). Given that these two causes seem distinct, is it not possible that the agent cause his decision to \(\phi\) and yet the agent’s reasons simultaneously cause an incompatible decision to \(\psi\)? If agent-causal libertarians side-step this difficult question by denying that reasons cause action, then they must explain how reasons can explain and motivate action without causing it; and this has turned out to be no easy task. (For more general attempts to understand reasons-explanation and motivation within a non-causal framework see Schueler 1995, 2003; Sehon 2005). For further discussion see the entry on incompatibilist (nondeterministic) theories of free will .

Finally, we note that some recent philosophers have questioned the presumed difference between event- and agent-causation by arguing that all causation is object or substance causation. They argue that the dominant tendency to understand ‘garden variety’ causal transactions in the world as relations between events is an unfortunate legacy of David Hume’s rejection of substance and causation as basic metaphysical categories. On the competing metaphysical picture of the world, the event or state of an object’s having some property such as mass is its having a causal power, which in suitable circumstances it exercises to bring about a characteristic effect. Applied to human agents in an account of free will, the account suggests a picture on which an agent’s having desires, beliefs, and intentions are rational powers to will particular courses of action, and where the agent’s willing is not determined in any one direction, she wills freely. An advantage for the agent-causalist who embraces this broader metaphysics is ‘ideological’ parsimony. For different developments and defenses of this approach, see Lowe (2008), Swinburne (2013), and O’Connor (2021); and for reason to doubt that a substance-causal metaphysics helps to allay skepticism concerning free will, see Clarke and Reed (2015).

3. Do We Have Free Will?

Most philosophers theorizing about free will take themselves to be attempting to analyze a near-universal power of mature human beings. But as we’ve noted above, there have been free will skeptics in both ancient and (especially) modern times. (Israel 2001 highlights a number of such skeptics in the early modern period.) In this section, we summarize the main lines of argument both for and against the reality of human freedom of will.

There are both a priori and empirical arguments against free will (See the entry on skepticism about moral responsibility ). Several of these start with an argument that free will is incompatible with causal determinism, which we will not rehearse here. Instead, we focus on arguments that human beings lack free will, against the background assumption that freedom and causal determinism are incompatible.

The most radical a priori argument is that free will is not merely contingently absent but is impossible. Nietzsche 1886 [1966] argues to this effect, and more recently it has been argued by Galen Strawson (1986, ch. 2; 1994, 2002). Strawson associates free will with being ‘ultimately morally responsible’ for one’s actions. He argues that, because how one acts is a result of, or explained by, “how one is, mentally speaking” (\(M\)), for one to be responsible for that choice one must be responsible for \(M\). To be responsible for \(M\), one must have chosen to be \(M\) itself—and that not blindly, but deliberately, in accordance with some reasons \(r_1\). But for that choice to be a responsible one, one must have chosen to be such as to be moved by \(r_1\), requiring some further reasons \(r_2\) for such a choice. And so on, ad infinitum . Free choice requires an impossible infinite regress of choices to be the way one is in making choices.

There have been numerous replies to Strawson’s argument. Mele (1995, 221ff.) argues that Strawson misconstrues the locus of freedom and responsibility. Freedom is principally a feature of our actions, and only derivatively of our characters from which such actions spring. The task of the theorist is to show how one is in rational, reflective control of the choices one makes, consistent with there being no freedom-negating conditions. While this seems right, when considering those theories that make one’s free control to reside directly in the causal efficacy of one’s reasons (such as compatibilist reasons-responsive accounts or event-causal libertarianism), it is not beside the point to reflect on how one came to be that way in the first place and to worry that such reflection should lead one to conclude that true responsibility (and hence freedom) is undermined, since a complete distal source of any action may be found external to the agent. Clarke (2003, 170–76) argues that an effective reply may be made by indeterminists, and, in particular, by nondeterministic agent-causal theorists. Such theorists contend that (i) aspects of ‘how one is, mentally speaking’, fully explain an agent’s choice without causally determining it and (ii) the agent himself causes the choice that is made (so that the agent’s antecedent state, while grounding an explanation of the action, is not the complete causal source of it). Since the agent’s exercise of this power is causally undetermined, it is not true that there is a sufficient ‘ultimate’ source of it external to the agent. Finally, Mele (2006, 129–34, and 2017, 212–16) and O’Connor (2009b) suggest that freedom and moral responsibility come in degrees and grow over time, reflecting the fact that ‘how one is, mentally speaking’ is increasingly shaped by one’s own past choices. Furthermore, some choices for a given individual may reflect more freedom and responsibility than others, which may be the kernel of truth behind Strawson’s sweeping argument. (For discussion of the ways that nature, nurture, and contingent circumstances shape our behavior and raise deep issues concerning the extent of our freedom and responsibility, see Levy 2011 and Russell 2017, chs. 10–12.)

A second family of arguments against free will contend that, in one way or another, nondeterministic theories of freedom entail either that agents lack control over their choices or that the choices cannot be adequately explained. These arguments are variously called the ‘Mind’, ‘Rollback’, or ‘Luck’ argument, with the latter admitting of several versions. (For statements of such arguments, see van Inwagen 1983, ch. 4; 2000; Haji 2001; Mele 2006; Shabo 2011, 2013, 2020; Coffman 2015). We note that some philosophers advance such arguments not as parts of a general case against free will, but merely as showing the inadequacy of specific accounts of free will [see, e.g., Griffith 2010].) They each describe imagined cases—individual cases, or comparison of intra- or inter-world duplicate antecedent conditions followed by diverging outcomes—designed to elicit the judgment that the occurrence of a choice that had remained unsettled given all prior causal factors can only be a ‘matter of chance’, ‘random’, or ‘a matter of luck’. Such terms have been imported from other contexts and have come to function as quasi-technical, unanalyzed concepts in these debates, and it is perhaps more helpful to avoid such proxies and to conduct the debates directly in terms of the metaphysical notion of control and epistemic notion of explanation. Where the arguments question whether an undetermined agent can exercise appropriate control over the choice he makes, proponents of nondeterministic theories often reply that control is not exercised prior to, but at the time of the choice—in the very act of bringing it about (see, e.g., Clarke 2005 and O’Connor 2007). Where the arguments question whether undetermined choices can be adequately explained, the reply often consists in identifying a form of explanation other than the form demanded by the critic—a ‘noncontrastive’ explanation, perhaps, rather than a ‘contrastive’ explanation, or a species of contrastive explanation consistent with indeterminism (see, e.g., Kane 1999; Clarke, 2003, ch. 8; and Franklin 2011a; 2018, ch. 5).

We now consider empirical arguments against human freedom. Some of these stem from the physical sciences (while making assumptions concerning the way physical phenomena fix psychological phenomena) and others from neuroscience and psychology.

It used to be common for philosophers to argue that there is empirical reason to believe that the world in general is causally determined, and since human beings are parts of the world, they are too. Many took this to be strongly confirmed by the spectacular success of Isaac Newton’s framework for understanding the universe as governed everywhere by fairly simple, exceptionless laws of motion. But the quantum revolution of the early twentieth century has made that ‘clockwork universe’ image at least doubtful at the level of basic physics. While quantum mechanics has proven spectacularly successful as a framework for making precise and accurate predictions of certain observable phenomena, its implications for the causal structure of reality is still not well understood, and there are competing indeterministic and deterministic interpretations. See the entry on quantum mechanics for detailed discussion.) It is possible that indeterminacy on the small-scale, supposing it to be genuine, ‘cancels out’ at the macroscopic scale of birds and buildings and people, so that behavior at this scale is virtually deterministic. But this idea, once common, is now being challenged empirically, even at the level of basic biology. Furthermore, the social, biological, and medical sciences, too, are rife with merely statistical generalizations. Plainly, the jury is out on all these inter-theoretic questions. But that is just a way to say that current science does not decisively support the idea that everything we do is pre-determined by the past, and ultimately by the distant past, wholly out of our control. For discussion, see Balaguer (2009), Koch (2009), Roskies (2014), Ellis (2016).

Maybe, then, we are subject to myriad causal influences, but the sum total of these influences doesn’t determine what we do, they only make it more or less likely that we’ll do this or that. Now some of the a priori no-free-will arguments above center on nondeterministic theories according to which there are objective antecedent probabilities associated with each possible choice outcome. Why objective probabilities of this kind might present special problems beyond those posed by the absence of determinism has been insufficiently explored to date. (For brief discussion, see Vicens 2016 and O’Connor 2016.) But one philosopher who argues that there is reason to hold that our actions, if undetermined, are governed by objective probabilities and that this fact calls into question whether we act freely is Derk Pereboom (2001, ch. 3; 2014, ch. 3). Pereboom notes that our best physical theories indicate that statistical laws govern isolated, small-scale physical events, and he infers from the thesis that human beings are wholly physically composed that such statistical laws will also govern all the physical components of human actions. Finally, Pereboom maintains that agent-causal libertarianism offers the correct analysis of free will. He then invites us to imagine that the antecedent probability of some physical component of an action occurring is \(0.32\). If the action is free while not violating the statistical law, then, in a scenario with a large enough number of instances, this action would have to be freely chosen close to \(32\) percent of the time. This leads to the problem of “wild coincidences”:

if the occurrence of these physical components were settled by the choices of agent-causes, then their actually being chosen close to 32 percent of the time would amount to a coincidence no less wild than the coincidence of possible actions whose physical components have an antecedent probability of about 0.99 being chosen, over large enough number of instances, close to 99 percent of the time. The proposal that agent-caused free choices do not diverge from what the statistical laws predict for the physical components of our actions would run so sharply counter to what we would expect as to make it incredible. (2014, 67)

Clarke (2010) questions the implicit assumption that free agent-causal choices should be expected not to conform to physical statistical laws, while O’Connor (2009a) challenges the more general assumption that freedom requires that agent-causal choices not be governed by statistical laws of any kind, as they plausibly would be if the relevant psychological states/powers are strongly emergent from physical states of the human brain. Finally, Runyan 2018 argues that Pereboom’s case rests on an implausible empirical assumption concerning the evolution of objective probabilities concerning types of behavior over time.

Pereboom’s empirical basis for free will skepticism is very general. Others see support for free will skepticism from specific findings and theories in the human sciences. They point to evidence that we can be unconsciously influenced in the choices we make by a range of factors, including ones that are not motivationally relevant; that we can come to believe that we chose to initiate a behavior that in fact was artificially induced; that people subject to certain neurological disorders will sometimes engage in purposive behavior while sincerely believing that they are not directing them. Finally, a great deal of attention has been given to the work of neuroscientist Benjamin Libet (2002). Libet conducted some simple experiments that seemed to reveal the existence of ‘preparatory’ brain activity (the ‘readiness potential’) shortly before a subject engages in an ostensibly spontaneous action. (Libet interpreted this activity as the brain’s ‘deciding’ what to do before we are consciously settled on a course of action.) Wegner (2002) surveys all of these findings (some of which are due to his own work as a social psychologist) and argues on their basis that the experience of conscious willing is ‘an illusion’. For criticism of such arguments, see Mele (2009); Nahmias (2014); Mudrik et al. (2022); and several contributions to Maoz and Sinnott-Armstrong (2022). Libet’s interpretation of the readiness potential has come in for severe criticism. After extensive subsequent study, neuroscientists are uncertain what it signifies. For thorough review of the evidence, see Schurger et al. (2021).

While Pereboom and others point to these empirical considerations in defense of free will skepticism, other philosophers see them as reasons to favor a more modest free will agnosticism (Kearns 2015) or to promote revisionism about the ‘folk idea of free will’ (Vargas 2013; Nichols 2015).

If one is a compatibilist, then a case for the reality of free will requires evidence for our being effective agents who for the most part are aware of what we do and why we are doing it. If one is an incompatibilist, then the case requires in addition evidence for causal indeterminism, occurring in the right locations in the process leading from deliberation to action. Many think that we already have third-personal ‘neutral’ scientific evidence for much of human behavior’s satisfying modest compatibilist requirements, such as Fischer and Ravizza’s reasons-responsiveness account. However, given the immaturity of social science and the controversy over whether psychological states ‘reduce’ in some sense to underlying physical states (and what this might entail for the reality of mental causation), this claim is doubtful. A more promising case for our satisfying (at least) compatibilist requirements on freedom is that effective agency is presupposed by all scientific inquiry and so cannot rationally be doubted (which fact is overlooked by some of the more extreme ‘willusionists’ such as Wegner).

However, effective intervention in the world (in scientific practice and elsewhere) does not (obviously) require that our behavior be causally undetermined, so the ‘freedom is rationally presupposed’ argument cannot be launched for such an understanding of freedom. Instead, incompatibilists usually give one of the following two bases for rational belief in freedom (both of which can be given by compatibilists, too).

First, philosophers have long claimed that we have introspective evidence of freedom in our experience of action, or perhaps of consciously attended or deliberated action. Augustine and Scotus, discussed earlier, are two examples among many. In recent years, philosophers have been more carefully scrutinizing the experience of agency and a debate has emerged concerning its contents, and in particular whether it supports an indeterministic theory of human free action. For discussion, see Deery et al. (2013), Guillon (2014), Horgan (2015), and Bayne (2017).

Second, philosophers (e.g., Reid 1788 [1969], Swinburne 2013) sometimes claim that our belief in the reality of free will is epistemically basic, or reasonable without requiring independent evidential support. Most philosophers hold that some beliefs have that status, on pain of our having no justified beliefs whatever. It is controversial, however, just which beliefs do because it is controversial which criteria a belief must satisfy to qualify for that privileged status. It is perhaps necessary that a basic belief be ‘instinctive’ (unreflectively held) for all or most human beings; that it be embedded in regular experience; and that it be central to our understanding of an important aspect of the world. Our belief in free will seems to meet these criteria, but whether they are sufficient is debated. (O’Connor 2019 proposes that free will belief is epistemically basic but defeasible.) Other philosophers defend a variation on this stance, maintaining instead that belief in the reality of moral responsibility is epistemically basic, and that since moral responsibility entails free will, or so it is claimed, we may infer the reality of free will (see, e.g., van Inwagen 1983, 206–13).

4. Theological Wrinkles

A large portion of Western philosophical work on free will has been written within an overarching theological framework, according to which God is the ultimate source, sustainer, and end of all else. Some of these thinkers draw the conclusion that God must be a sufficient, wholly determining cause for everything that happens; all of them suppose that every creaturely act necessarily depends on the explanatorily prior, cooperative activity of God. It is also commonly presumed by philosophical theists that human beings are free and responsible (on pain of attributing evil in the world to God alone, and so impugning His perfect goodness). Hence, those who believe that God is omni-determining typically are compatibilists with respect to freedom and (in this case) theological determinism. Edwards (1754 [1957]) is a good example. But those who suppose that God’s sustaining activity (and special activity of conferring grace) is only a necessary condition on the outcome of human free choices need to tell a more subtle story, on which omnipotent God’s cooperative activity can be (explanatorily) prior to a human choice and yet the outcome of that choice be settled only by the choice itself. For important medieval discussions—the apex of philosophical reflection on theological concerns—see the relevant portions of Al-Ghazali IP , Aquinas BW and Scotus QAM . Three positions (given in order of logical strength) on God’s activity vis-à-vis creaturely activity were variously defended by thinkers of this area: mere conservationism, concurrentism, and occasionalism. These positions turn on subtle distinctions, which have recently been explored by Freddoso (1988), Kvanvig and McCann (1991), Koons (2002), Grant (2016 and 2019), and Judisch (2016).

Many suppose that there is a challenge to human freedom stemming not only from God’s perfect power but also from his perfect knowledge. A standard argument for the incompatibility of free will and causal determinism has a close theological analogue. Recall van Inwagen’s influential formulation of the ‘Consequence Argument’:

If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us. (van Inwagen 1983, 16)

And now consider an argument that turns on God’s comprehensive and infallible knowledge of the future:

If infallible divine foreknowledge is true, then our acts are the (logical) consequences of God’s beliefs in the remote past. (Since God cannot get things wrong, his believing that something will be so entails that it will be so.) But it is not up to us what beliefs God had before we were born, and neither is it up to us that God’s beliefs are necessarily true. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us.

An excellent discussion of these arguments in tandem and attempts to point to relevant disanalogies between causal determinism and infallible foreknowledge may be found in the introduction to Fischer (1989). See also the entry on foreknowledge and free will.

Another issue concerns how knowledge of God, the ultimate Good, would impact human freedom. Many philosophical theologians, especially the medieval Aristotelians, were drawn to the idea that human beings cannot but will that which they take to be an unqualified good. (As noted above, Duns Scotus is an exception to this consensus, as were Ockham and Suarez subsequently, but their dissent is limited.) Hence, if there is an afterlife, in which humans ‘see God face to face,’ they will inevitably be drawn to Him. Following Pascal, Murray (1993, 2002) argues that a good God would choose to make His existence and character less than certain for human beings, for the sake of preserving their freedom. (He will do so, the argument goes, at least for a period of time in which human beings participate in their own character formation.) If it is a good for human beings that they freely choose to respond in love to God and to act in obedience to His will, then God must maintain an ‘epistemic distance’ from them lest they be overwhelmed by His goodness or power and respond out of necessity, rather than freedom. (See also the other essays in Howard-Snyder and Moser 2002.)

If it is true that God withholds our ability to be certain of his existence for the sake of our freedom, then it is natural to conclude that humans will lack freedom in heaven. And it is anyways common to traditional Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologies to maintain that humans cannot sin in heaven. Even so, traditional Christian theology at least maintains that human persons in heaven are free. What sort of freedom is in view here, and how does it relate to mundane freedom? Two good recent discussions of these questions are Pawl and Timpe (2009) and Tamburro (2017).

Finally, there is the question of the freedom of God himself. Perfect goodness is an essential, not acquired, attribute of God. God cannot lie or be in any way immoral in His dealings with His creatures (appearances notwithstanding). Unless we take the minority position on which this is a trivial claim, since whatever God does definitionally counts as good, this appears to be a significant, inner constraint on God’s freedom. Did we not contemplate immediately above that human freedom would be curtailed by our having an unmistakable awareness of what is in fact the Good? And yet is it not passing strange to suppose that God should be less than perfectly free?

One suggested solution to this puzzle takes as its point of departure the distinction noted in section 2.3 between the ability to do otherwise and sourcehood, proposing that the core metaphysical feature of freedom is being the ultimate source, or originator, of one’s choices. For human beings or any created persons who owe their existence to factors outside themselves, the only way their acts of will could find their ultimate origin in themselves is for such acts not to be determined by their character and circumstances. For if all my willings were wholly determined, then if we were to trace my causal history back far enough, we would ultimately arrive at external factors that gave rise to me, with my particular genetic dispositions. My motives at the time would not be the ultimate source of my willings, only the most proximate ones. Only by there being less than deterministic connections between external influences and choices, then, is it be possible for me to be an ultimate source of my activity, concerning which I may truly say, “the buck stops here.”

As is generally the case, things are different on this point in the case of God. As Anselm observed, even if God’s character absolutely precludes His performing certain actions in certain contexts, this will not imply that some external factor is in any way a partial origin of His willings and refrainings from willing. Indeed, this would not be so even if he were determined by character to will everything which He wills. God’s nature owes its existence to nothing. Thus, God would be the sole and ultimate source of His will even if He couldn’t will otherwise.

Well, then, might God have willed otherwise in any respect? The majority view in the history of philosophical theology is that He indeed could have. He might have chosen not to create anything at all. And given that He did create, He might have created any number of alternatives to what we observe. But there have been noteworthy thinkers who argued the contrary position, along with others who clearly felt the pull of the contrary position even while resisting it. The most famous such thinker is Leibniz (1710 [1985]), who argued that God, being both perfectly good and perfectly powerful, cannot fail to will the best possible world. Leibniz insisted that this is consistent with saying that God is able to will otherwise, although his defense of this last claim is notoriously difficult to make out satisfactorily. Many read Leibniz, malgré lui , as one whose basic commitments imply that God could not have willed other than He does in any respect.

One might challenge Leibniz’s reasoning on this point by questioning the assumption that there is a uniquely best possible Creation (an option noted by Adams 1987, though he challenges instead Leibniz’s conclusion based on it). One way this could be is if there is no well-ordering of worlds: some pairs of worlds are sufficiently different in kind that they are incommensurate with each other (neither is better than the other, nor are they equal) and no world is better than either of them. Another way this could be is if there is no upper limit on goodness of worlds: for every possible world God might have created, there are others (infinitely many, in fact) which are better. If such is the case, one might argue, it is reasonable for God to arbitrarily choose which world to create from among those worlds exceeding some threshold value of overall goodness.

However, William Rowe (2004) has countered that the thesis that there is no upper limit on goodness of worlds has a very different consequence: it shows that there could not be a morally perfect Creator! For suppose our world has an on-balance moral value of \(n\) and that God chose to create it despite being aware of possibilities having values higher than \(n\) that He was able to create. It seems we can now imagine a morally better Creator: one having the same options who chooses to create a better world. For critical replies to Rowe, see Almeida (2008, ch. 1), Kray (2010), and Zimmerman (2018).

Finally, Norman Kretzmann (1997, 220–25) has argued in the context of Aquinas’s theological system that there is strong pressure to say that God must have created something or other, though it may well have been open to Him to create any of a number of contingent orders. The reason is that there is no plausible account of how an absolutely perfect God might have a resistible motivation—one consideration among other, competing considerations—for creating something rather than nothing. (It obviously cannot have to do with any sort of utility, for example.) The best general understanding of God’s being motivated to create at all—one which in places Aquinas himself comes very close to endorsing—is to see it as reflecting the fact that God’s very being, which is goodness, necessarily diffuses itself. Perfect goodness will naturally communicate itself outwardly; God who is perfect goodness will naturally create, generating a dependent reality that imperfectly reflects that goodness. Wainwright (1996) discusses a somewhat similar line of thought in the Puritan thinker Jonathan Edwards. Alexander Pruss (2016), however, raises substantial grounds for doubt concerning this line of thought; O’Connor (2022) offers a rejoinder.

• Adams, Robert, 1987. “Must God Create the Best?” in his The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology , New York: Oxford University Press, 51–64.
• Al-Ghazali, 2000. [ IP ] The Incoherence of the Philosophers , Michael E. Marmura (ed.), Provo: Brigham Young University Press.
• Almeida, Michael, 2008. The Metaphysics of Perfect Beings , New York: Routledge.
• Anscombe, G. E. M., 1971. Causality and Determination , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Aquinas, Thomas, 1945. [ BW ] Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas , 2 volumes, New York: Random House.
• –––, 1993. [ SPW ] Selected Philosophical Writings , T. McDermott (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2003. [ DM ] On Evil , R. Regan (trans.), B. Davies (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Aristotle, 1985. [ NE ] Nicomachean Ethics , tr. Terence Irwin, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
• Augustine, 1993. [ FCW ] On the Free Choice of the Will , tr. Thomas Williams, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
• Austin, J. L., 1961. “Ifs and Cans,” in Philosophical Papers , J. O. Urmson and G. Warnock (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 153–80.
• Ayer, A. J., 1954. “Freedom and Necessity,” in his Philosophical Essays , New York: St. Martin’s Press, 3–20.
• Baker, Lynne Rudder, 2003. “Why Christians Should Not Be Libertarians: An Augustinian Challenge,” Faith and Philosophy , 20 (4): 460–478.
• Balaguer, Mark, 2009. “Why There Are No Good Arguments for any Interesting Version of Determinism,” Synthese , 168: 1–21.
• –––, 2010. Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2014. “Replies to McKenna, Pereboom, and Kane,” Philosophical Studies , 169: 71–92
• Bayne, Tim, 2017. “Free Will and the Phenomenology of Agency,” in The Routledge Companion to Free Will , Kevin Timpe, Meghan Griffith, and Neil Levy, (eds.), Abingdon: Routledge, 633–44.
• Bishop, John, 1989. Natural Agency: An Essay on the Causal Theory of Action , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Bobzien, Suzanne, 1998. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2000. “Did Epicurus Discover the Free-Will Problem?” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy , 19: 287–337.
• Bramhall, John, [1655] 1999. “Bramhall’s Discourse of Liberty and Necessity,” in Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity , Vere Chappell (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–14.
• Brand, Myles, 1979. “The Fundamental Question in Action Theory,” Noûs , 13: 131–51.
• Bratman, Michael, 2000. “Reflection, Planning, and Temporally Extended Agency,” Philosophical Review , 109: 35–61.
• –––, 2005. “Planning Agency, Autonomous Agency,” in Personal Autonomy , James Stacey Taylor (ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Broad, C. D., 1952. “Determinism, Indeterminism, and Libertarianism,” in his Ethics and the History of Philosophy: Selected Essays , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul LTD.
• Campbell, C. A., 1951. “Is ‘Freewill’ a Pseudo-Problem?” Mind , 60: 441–65.
• Capes, Justin A., 2016. “Blameworthiness and Buffered Alternatives,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 53: 269–80.
• Capes, Justin A. and Philip Swenson, 2017. “Frankfurt Cases: The Fine-grained Response Revisited,” Philosophical Studies , 174: 967–81.
• Caruso, Gregg, 2012. Free Will and Consciousness: A Determinist Account of the Illusion of Free Will , Plymouth: Lexington Books.
• Chakrabarti, Arindam, 2017. “Free Will and Freedom in Indian Philosophies,” in The Routledge Companion to Free Will , Kevin Timpe, Meghan Griffith, and Neil Levy (eds.), New York: Routledge, 389–404.
• Chisholm, Roderick, 1966. “Freedom and Action,” in Freedom and Determinism , Keith Lehrer (ed.), New York: Random House, 11–40.
• –––, 1976. Person and Object: A Metaphysical Study , La Salle, IL: Open Court,
• Clarke, Randolph, 1993. “Toward a Credible Agent-Causal Account of Free Will,” Noûs , 27: 191–203.
• –––, 1995. “Indeterminism and Control,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 32: 125–38.
• –––, 1996. “Agent Causation and Event Causation in the Production of Free Action,” Philosophical Topics , 24: 19–48.
• –––, 2003. Libertarian Accounts of Free Will , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2005. “Agent Causation and the Problem of Luck,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 86: 408–21.
• –––, 2009. “Dispositions, Abilities to Act, and Free Will: The New Dispositionalism,” Mind , 118: 323–51.
• –––, 2010. “Are We Free to Obey the Laws?” American Philosophical Quarterly , 47: 389–401.
• –––, 2011. “Alternatives for Libertarians,” in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will , Robert Kane (ed.), 2nd edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 329–48.
• –––, 2019. “Free Will, Agent Causation, and ‘Disappearing Agents’,” Noûs , 53 (1): 76–96.
• Clarke, Randolph and Thomas Reed, 2015. “Free Will and Agential Powers,” Oxford Studies in Agency and Moral Responsibility , 3: 6–33.
• Coffman, E. J., 2015. Luck: Its Nature and Significance for Human Knowledge and Agency , Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Cohen, Yishai, 2017. “Fischer’s Deterministic Frankfurt-style Argument,” Erkenntnis , 82: 121–40.
• Couenhoven, Jesse, 2007. “Augustine’s Rejection of the Free-will Defence: An Overview of the Late Augustine’s Theodicy,” Religious Studies , 43 (3): 279–298.
• Cyr, Taylor W., 2017.“Semicompatibilism: No Ability to Do Otherwise Required,” Philosophical Explorations , 20 (3): 308–21.
• Cyr, Taylor W. and Philip Swenson, 2019. “Moral Responsibility without General Ability,” Philosophical Quarterly , 69 (274): 22–40.
• Davidson, Donald, 1963. “Actions, Reasons, and Causes,” Journal of Philosophy , 60: 685–700.
• –––, 1973. “Freedom to Act,” in Essays on Freedom of Action , Ted Honderich (ed.), New York: Routledge and Kagan Press, 63–81.
• Deery, Oisin, Matthew Bedke, and Shaun Nichols, 2013. “Phenomenal Abilities: Incompatibilism and the Experience of Agency,” Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility , 1: 126–50.
• Dennett, Daniel, 1984. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Descartes, René, 1641 [1988]. Meditations on First Philosophy , in Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings , John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch (eds. and trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 73–121.
• –––, 1644 [1988]. Principles of Philosophy , in Descartes: Selected Philosophical Writings , John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch (eds. and trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 160–212.
• Donagan, Alan, 1985. Human Ends and Human Actions: An Exploration in St. Thomas’s Treatment , Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
• Dihle, Albrecht, 1982. The Theory of Will in Classical Antiquity , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Dilman, Ilham, 1999. Free Will: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction , London: Routledge.
• Double, Richard, 1991. The Non-Reality of Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Duns Scotus, John, 1986. “Questions on Aristotle’s Metaphysics IX, Q.15” [QAM] in Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality , Allan B. Wolter, O.F.M. (ed. and trans.), Washington: Catholic University of America Press.
• –––, [1297–99] [1994]. Contingency and Freedom: Lectura I 39 , tr. Vos Jaczn et al ., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Edwards, Jonathan, 1754 [1957]. Freedom of Will , Paul Ramsey (ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Ekstrom, Laura Waddell, 1993. “A Coherence Theory of Autonomy,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 53: 599–616.
• –––, 2000. Free Will: A Philosophical Study , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• –––, 2019. “Toward a Plausible Event-Causal Indeterminist Account of Free Will,” Synthese , 196 (1): 127–144.
• Ellis, George, 2016. How Can Physics Underlie the Mind? , Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
• Elzein, Nadine, 2017. “Frankfurt-Style Counterexamples and the Importance of Alternative Possibilities,” Acta Analytica , 32: 169–91.
• Fara, Michael, 2008. “Masked Abilities and Compatibilism,” Mind , 117: 844–65.
• Fischer, John Martin, 1982. “Responsibility and Control,” Journal of Philosophy , 79: 24–40.
• –––, 1987. “Responsiveness and Moral Responsibility,” in Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions: New Essays on Moral Psychology , Ferdinand Schoeman (ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 81–106; reprinted in Fischer 2006 63–83. (Citations refer to reprinted edition.)
• –––, 1989. God, Freedom, and Foreknowledge , Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• –––, 1994. The Metaphysics of Free Will: An Essay on Control , Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• –––, 1999. “Recent Work on Moral Responsibility,” Ethics , 110: 93–139.
• –––, 2006. My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2010. “The Frankfurt Cases: The Moral of the Stories,” Philosophical Review , 119: 315–36.
• –––, 2011. “The Zygote Argument Remixed,” Analysis , 71: 267–72.
• –––, 2012. Deep Control: Essays on Free Will and Value , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013. “The Deterministic Horn of the Dilemma Defense: A Reply to Widerker and Goetz,” Analysis , 73: 489–96.
• –––, 2018. “The Freedom Required for Moral Responsibility,” in Virtue, Happiness, and Knowledge: Themes from the Work of Gail Fine and Terence Irwin , David Brink, Susan Meyer, and Christopher Shields (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 216–233.
• Fischer, John Martin and Mark Ravizza, 1998. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fischer, John Martin and Neal Tognazzini, 2011. “The Physiognomy of Responsibility,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 381–417.
• Frankfurt, Harry, 1969. “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” Journal of Philosophy , 66: 829–39.
• –––, 1971. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person,” Journal of Philosophy , 68: 5–20.
• –––, 1993. “On the Necessity of Ideals,” in The Moral Self , G.C. Noam and T. Wren (eds.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 16–27.
• –––, 1994. “Autonomy, Necessity, and Love,” in Vernunftbegriffe in der Moderne: Stuttgarter Hegel-Kongress 1993 , H.F. Fulda and R.P. Horstmann (eds.), Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 433–47.
• Franklin, Christopher Evan, 2011a. “Farewell to the Luck (and Mind ) Argument,” Philosophical Studies , 156: 199–230.
• –––, 2011b. “Masks, Abilities, and Opportunities: Why the New Dispositionalism Cannot Succeed,” The Modern Schoolman , 88: 89–103.
• –––, 2011c. “Neo-Frankfurtians and Buffer Cases: The New Challenge to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities,” Philosophical Studies , 152: 189–207.
• –––, 2014. “Event-Causal Libertarianism, Functional Reduction, and the Disappearing Agent Argument,” Philosophical Studies , 170: 413–32.
• –––, 2015. “Everyone Thinks that an Ability to Do Otherwise Is Necessary for Free Will and Moral Responsibility,” Philosophical Studies , 172: 2091–107.
• –––, 2016. “If Anyone Should Be an Agent-Causalist, then Everyone Should Be an Agent-Causalist,” Mind , 125: 1101–31.
• –––, 2018. A Minimal Libertarianism: Free Will and the Promise of Reduction , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Freddoso, Alfred, 1988. “Medieval Aristotelianism and the Case against Secondary Causation in Nature,” in Divine and Human Action: Essays in the Metaphysics of Theism , Thomas V. Morris (ed.), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 74–118.
• Frede, Michael, 2011. A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Ginet, Carl, 1966. “Might We Have No Choice?” in Freedom and Determinism , Keith Lehrer (ed.), New York: Random House, 87–104.
• –––, 1990. On Action , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1996. “In Defense of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities: Why I Don’t Find Frankfurt’s Argument Convincing,” Philosophical Perspectives , 10: 403–17.
• –––, 2002. “Review of Living without Free Will ,” Journal of Ethics , 6: 305–309.
• –––, 2008. “In Defense of a Non-Causal Account of Reasons Explanations,” The Journal of Ethics , 12: 229–37.
• Goetz, Stewart C., 2005. “Frankfurt-Style Counterexamples and Begging the Question,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 29: 83–105.
• –––, 2009. Freedom, Teleology, and Evil , London: T&T Clark.
• Grant, W. Matthews, 2016. “Divine Universal Causality and Libertarian Freedom,” in Free Will and Theism: Connections, Contingencies, and Concerns , Kevin Timpe and Daniel Speak (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 214–33.
• –––, 2019. Free Will and God’s Universal Causality: The Dual Sources Account , London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Griffith, Meghan, 2010. “Why Agent-Caused Actions Are Not Lucky,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 47: 43–56.
• Guillon, Jean-Baptiste, 2014. “Van Inwagen on Introspected Freedom,” Philosophical Studies , 168: 645–63.
• Haji, Ishtiyaque, 1998. Moral Appraisability: Puzzles, Proposals, and Perplexities , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2001. “Control Conundrums: Modest Libertarianism, Responsibility, and Explanation,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 82: 178–200.
• Haji, Ishtiyaque and Michael McKenna, 2004. “Dialectical Delicacies in the Debate about Freedom and Alternative Possibilities,” Journal of Philosophy , 101: 299–314.
• Hecht, Jonathan, 2014. “Freedom of the Will in Plato and Augustine,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy , 22: 196–216.
• Hobart, R. E., 1934. “Free Will as Involving Determination and Inconceivable Without It,” Mind , 43: 1–27.
• Hobbes, Thomas, 1654 [1999]. Of Liberty and Necessity , in Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity , Vere Chappell (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15–42.
• –––, 1656 [1999]. The Questions concerning Liberty, Necessity, and Chance , in Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity , Vere Chappell (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 69–90.
• Hoffman, Tobias and Cyrille Michon, 2017. “Aquinas on Free Will and Intellectual Determinism,” Philosopher’s Imprint , 17 (10), 1–36.
• Hofmann, Frank, 2022. “Explaining Free Will by Rational Abilities,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 25 (2): 283–93.
• Holton, Richard, 2009. Willing, Wanting, Waiting , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Horgan, Terrence, 1979. “‘Could’, Possible Worlds, and Moral Responsibility,” Southern Journal of Philosophy , 17: 345–58.
• –––, 2015. “Injecting the Phenomenology of Agency into the Free Will Debate,” Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility , 3: 34–61.
• Howard-Snyder, Daniel and Paul Moser (eds.), 2002. Divine Hiddenness: New Essays , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hume, David, 1740 [1978]. A Treatise of Human Nature , L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch (eds.), 2 nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1748 [1975]. Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals , P.H. Nidditch (ed.), third edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hunt, David P., 2005. “Moral Responsibility and Buffered Alternatives,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 29: 126–45.
• Irwin, Terence, 1992. “Who Discovered the Will?” Philosophical Perspectives , 6: 453–73.
• Israel, Jonathan, 2001. Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750 , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jacobs, Jonathan D. and Timothy O’Connor, 2013. “Agent Causation in a Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics,” in Mental Causation and Ontology , Sophie C. Gibb, E.J. Lowe, and Rögnvaldur Ingthorsson (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 173–92.
• Jaworska, Agnieszka, 2007. “Caring and Internality,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 74: 529–68.
• Judisch, Neal, 2016. “Divine conservation and creaturely freedom,” in Free Will and Theism: Connections, Contingencies, and Concerns , Kevin Timpe and Daniel Speak (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 234–58.
• Kane, Robert, 1996. The Significance of Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1999. “Responsibility, Luck, and Chance,” Journal of Philosophy , 96: 217–40.
• –––, 2011. “Rethinking Free Will: New Perspectives on an Ancient Problem,” in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will , Robert Kane (ed.), 2 nd edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 381–404.
• –––, 2016. “On the Role of Indeterminism in Libertarian Free Will,” Philosophical Explorations , 19: 2–16.
• Kant, Immanuel, 1781 [1999]. Critique of Pure Reason , trs. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1785 [1998]. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals , tr. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1788 [2015]. Critique of Practical Reason , tr. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kearns, Stephen, 2012. “Aborting the Zygote Argument,” Philosophical Studies , 160: 379–89.
• –––, 2015. “Free Will Agnosticism,” Noûs , 47: 235–52.
• Kittle, Simon, 2019. “Does Everyone Think the Ability to do Otherwise is Necessary for Free Will and Moral Responsibility?” Philosophia , 47 (4): 1177–83.
• Koch, Christof, 2009. “Free Will, Physics, Biology, and the Brain,” in Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will , George F.R. Ellis, Nancey Murphy, and Timothy O’Connor (eds.), New York: Springer, 31–52.
• Koons, Robert, 2002. “Dual Agency: A Thomistic Account of Providence and Human Freedom,” Philosophia Christi , 4: 397–410.
• Kraay, Klaas J., 2010. “The Problem of No Best World,” in A Companion to Philosophy of Religion , Charles Taliaferro and Paul Draper (eds.), 2 nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 491–99.
• Kretzmann, Norman, 1997. The Metaphysics of Theism: Aquinas’s Natural Theology in Summa Contra Gentiles I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Kvanvig, Jon and Hugh McCann, 1991. “The Occasionalist Proselytizer: A Modified Catechism,” Philosophical Perspectives , 5: 587–615.
• Lehrer, Keith, 1976. “Can in Theory and Practice: A Possible Worlds Analysis,” in Action Theory , Myles Brand and Douglas Walton (eds.), Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 242–71.
• –––, 1980. “Preferences, Conditionals, and Freedom,” in Time and Cause: Essays Presented to Richard Taylor , Peter van Inwagen (ed.), Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 187–200.
• –––, 1986. “Cans without Ifs,” Analysis , 29: 29–32.
• Leibniz, G.W., 1686 [1991]. Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays , trs. Daniel Garber and Roger Ariew, 9 th edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
• –––, 1710 [1985]. Theodicy , LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
• Levy, Neil, 2011. Hard Luck: How Luck Undermines Free Will and Moral Responsibility , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lewis, David, 1976. “The Paradoxes of Time Travel,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 13: 145–52.
• –––, 1979. “Counterfactual Dependence and Time’s Arrow,” Noûs , 13: 455–76.
• –––, 1981. “Are We Free to Break the Laws?” Theoria , 47: 113–21.
• –––, 1997. “Finkish Dispositions,” Philosophical Quarterly , 47: 143–58.
• Libet, Benjamin, 2002. “Do We Have Free Will?” in Oxford Handbook of Free Will , Robert Kane (ed.), 1st edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 551–64.
• Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper, 2003. “Identification and Responsibility,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 6: 349–76.
• Locke, Don, 1973. “Natural Powers and Human Abilities,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 74: 171–87.
• Locke, John, 1690 [1975]. An Essay Concerning the Human Understanding , Peter H. Nidditch (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lowe, E. J., 2008. Personal Agency: The Metaphysics of Mind and Action , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• MacDonald, Scott, 1998. “Aquinas’s Libertarian Account of Free Will,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie , 2: 309–28.
• –––, 1999. “Primal Sin,” in Gareth B. Matthews (ed.), The Augustinian Tradition , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 110–139.
• Malebranche, Nicolas, 1684 [1993]. Treatise on Ethics , C. Walton (trans.), Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Maoz, Uri and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (eds.), 2022. Free Will: Philosophers and Neuroscientists in Conversation , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Marchal, Kai and Christian Helmut Wenzel, 2017. “Chinese Perspectives on Free Will,” in The Routledge Companion to Free Will , Kevin Timpe, Meghan Griffith, and Neil Levy (eds.), New York: Routledge, 374–88.
• Markosian, Ned, 1999. “A Compatibilist Version of the Theory of Agent Causation,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 80: 257–77.
• –––, 2012. “Agent Causation as the Solution to all the Compatibilist’s Problems,” Philosophical Studies , 157: 383–98.
• McCann, Hugh, 1998. The Works of Agency: On Human Action, Will, and Freedom , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• McGeer, Victoria, 2014. “P. F. Strawson’s Consequentialism,” in Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility , 2: 64–92.
• McKenna, Michael, 2003. “Robustness, Control, and the Demand for Morally Significant Alternatives: Frankfurt Examples with Oodles and Oodles of Alternatives,” in Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: Essays on the Importance of Alternative Possibilities , David Widerker and Michael McKenna (eds.), Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 201–18.
• –––, 2008. “A Hard-Line Reply to Pereboom’s Four-Case Manipulation Argument,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 77: 142–59.
• –––, 2012. Conversation & Responsibility , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013. “Reasons-Responsiveness, Agents, and Mechanisms,” in Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility , 1: 151–83.
• –––, 2014. “Resisting the Manipulation Argument: A Hard‐Liner Takes It on the Chin,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 89: 467–84.
• Mele, Alfred R., 1992. Springs of Action , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1995. Autonomous Agents , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2000. “Goal-directed Action: Teleological Explanations, Causal Theories, and Deviance,” Philosophical Perspectives , 14: 279–300.
• –––, 2003. “Agents’ Abilities,” Noûs , 37: 447–70.
• –––, 2006. Free Will and Luck , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2009. Effective Intentions: The Power of Conscious Will , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2017. Aspects of Agency: Decisions, Abilities, Explanations, and Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mele, Alfred R. and David Robb, 1998. “Rescuing Frankfurt-style Scenarios,” Philosophical Review , 107: 97–112.
• –––, 2003. “Bbs, Magnets and Seesaws: The Metaphysics of Frankfurt-style Cases,” in Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: Essays on the Importance of Alternative Possibilities , David Widerker and Michael McKenna (eds.), Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 127–38.
• Mitchell-Yellin, Benjamin, 2015. “The Platonic Model: Statement, Clarification and Defense,” Philosophical Explorations , 18: 378–92.
• Moore, G. E., 1912. Ethics , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Moya, Carlos, 2011. “On the Very Idea of a Robust Alternative,” Critica , 43: 3–26.
• Mudrik, Liad, Inbal Gur Arie, Yoni Amir, Yarden Shir, Pamela Hieronymi, Uri Maoz, Timothy O’Connor, Aaron Schurger, Manuel Vargas, Tillmann Vierkant, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Adina Roskies, 2022. “Free Will Without Consciousness?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 26 (7): 555–566.
• Murray, Michael, 1993. “Coercion and the Hiddenness of God,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 30: 27–38.
• –––, 2002. “Deus Absconditus,” in Divine Hiddenness: New Essays , Daniel Howard-Snyder and Paul Moser (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 62–82.
• Nahmias, Eddy, 2014. “Is Free Will an Illusion? Confronting Challenges from the Modern Mind Sciences,” in Moral Psychology (Volume 4: Free Will and Moral Responsibility), Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–25.
• Nelkin, Dana K., 2011. Making Sense of Freedom and Responsibility , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nichols, Shaun, 2015. Bound: Essays on Free Will and Moral Responsibility , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nietzsche, Frederick, 1886 [1966]. Beyond Good and Evil , W. Kaufmann (trans.), New York: Vintage.
• Nowell-Smith, P. H., 1948. “Free Will and Moral Responsibility,” Mind , 57: 45–61.
• –––, 1954. “Determinists and Libertarians,” Mind , 63: 317–37.
• Nozick, Robert, 1981. Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• O’Connor, Timothy, 2000. Persons and Causes: The Metaphysics of Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2007. “Is It All Just a Matter of Luck?” Philosophical Explorations , 10: 157–61.
• –––, 2009a. “Agent-Causal Power,” in Dispositions and Causes , Toby Handfield (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 189–214.
• –––, 2009b. “Degrees of Freedom,” Philosophical Explorations , 12: 119–25.
• –––, 2011. “Agent-Causal Theories of Freedom,” in Oxford Handbook on Free Will , Robert Kane (ed.), 2nd edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 309–28.
• –––, 2016. “Probability and Freedom,” Res Philosophica , 93: 289–93.
• –––, 2019. “How Do We Know That We Are Free?” European Journal of Analytic Philosophy , 15 (2): 79–98.
• –––, 2021. “Free Will in a Network of Interacting Causes,” in W. Simpson, R. Koons & J. Orr (eds.), Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics and the Theology of Nature , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2022. “Why The One Did Not Remain Within Itself,” in Lara Buchak and Dean Zimmerman (eds.), Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Religion (Volume 10), 233–46.
• Palmer, David, 2005. “New Distinctions, Same Troubles: A Reply to Haji and McKenna,” Journal of Philosophy , 102: 474–82.
• –––, 2011. “Pereboom on Frankfurt Cases,” Philosophical Studies , 153: 261–72.
• –––, 2013. “The Timing Objection to the Frankfurt Cases,” Erkenntnis , 78: 1011–23.
• –––, 2014. “Deterministic Frankfurt Cases,” Synthese , 191: 3847–64.
• –––, 2021. “Free Will and Control: A Noncausal Approach,” Synthese , 198 (10): 10043–62.
• Pawl, Timothy and Kevin Timpe. “Incompatibilism, Sin, and Free Will in Heaven,” Faith and Philosophy , 26: 398–419.
• Pendergraft, Garrett, 2010. “The Explanatory Power of Local Miracle Compatibilism,” Philosophical Studies , 156: 249–66.
• Pereboom, Derk, 2001. Living Without Free Will , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2014. Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pink, Thomas 2017. Self-determination: The Ethics of Action , volume 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Plato (CW/1997). Complete Works , John Cooper (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
• Pruss, Alexander, 2016. “Divine Creative Freedom,” in Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Religion , 7: 213–38.
• Ragland, Scott, 2006. ‘Was Descartes a Libertarian?’ in Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy , 3: 57–90.
• Reid, Thomas, 1788 [1969]. Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind , Baruch Brody (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Robinson, Michael, 2014. “The Limits of Limited-Blockage Frankfurt-style Cases,” Philosophical Studies , 169: 429–46.
• Rogers, Katherin, 2004. “Augustine’s Compatibilism,” Religious Studies , 40 (4): 415–435.
• Roskies, Adina, 2014. “Can Neuroscience Resolve Issues about Free Will?” in Moral Psychology (Volume 4: Free Will and Moral Responsibility), Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 103–26.
• Rowe, William, 1995. “Two Concepts of Freedom,” in Agents, Causes, and Events: Essays on Indeterminism and Free Will , Timothy O’Connor (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 151–71.
• –––, 2004. Can God Be Free? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Runyan, Jason, 2018. “Agent-causal Libertarianism, Statistical Neural Laws and Wild Coincidences,” Synthese , 195 (10): 4563–4580.
• Russell, Paul, 2010. The Riddle of Hume’s Treatise: Skepticism, Naturalism, and Irreligion , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2017. The Limits of Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sartorio, Carolina, 2016. Causation and Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Scanlon, T. M., 2008. Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, and Blame , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Schlick, Moritz, 1939. “When Is a Man Responsible?” in Problems of Ethics , tr. by David Rynin. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishing.
• Schlosser, Markus, 2014. “The Luck Argument against Event-causal Libertarianism: It Is Here to Stay,” Philosophical Studies , 167: 375–85.
• Schopenhauer, Arthur, 1841 [1999]. Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schueler, G. F., 1995. Desire: Its Role in Practical Reason and the Explanation of Action , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2003. Reasons and Purposes: Human Rationality and the Teleological Explanation of Action , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Schurger, Aaron, Pengbo Hu, Joanna Pak, and Adina Roskies, 2021. “What Is the Readiness Potential?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 25 (7): 558–570.
• Sehon, Scott R., 2005. Teleological Realism: Mind, Agency, and Explanation , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Shabo, Seth, 2011. “Why Free Will Remains a Mystery,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 92: 105–25.
• –––, 2013. “Free Will and Mystery: Looking Past the Mind Argument,” Philosophical Studies , 162: 291–307.
• –––, 2020. “The Two-Stage Luck Objection,” Noûs , 54 (1): 3–23.
• Sher, George, 2006. In Praise of Blame , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Shoemaker, David, 2003. “Caring, Identification, and Agency,” Ethics , 114: 88–118.
• –––, 2011. “Attributability, Answerability, and Accountability: Toward a Wider Theory of Moral Responsibility,” Ethics , 121: 602–32.
• –––, 2015. “Ecumenical Attributability,” in The Nature of Moral Responsibility: New Essays , Randolph Clarke, Michael McKenna, and Angela Smith (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 115–40.
• Slote, Michael, 1982. “Selective Necessity and the Free-Will Problem,” Journal of Philosophy , 79: 5–24.
• Smart, J. J. C., 1961. “Free-will, Praise and Blame,” Mind , 70: 291–306.
• Smilansky, Saul, 2000. Free Will and Illusion , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Smith, Angela M., 2012. “Attributability, Answerability, and Accountability: In Defense of a Unified Account,” Ethics , 122: 575–89.
• Smith, Michael, 2003. “Rational Capacities,” in Weakness of Will and Varieties of Practical Irrationality , Sarah Stroud and Christine Tappolet (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 17–38.
• Speak, Daniel, 2007. “The Impertinence of Frankfurt-Style Argument,” Philosophical Quarterly , 57: 76–95.
• –––, 2011. “The Consequence Argument Revisited,” in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will , Robert Kane (ed.), 2nd edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 115–30.
• Spinoza, Baruch, 1677 [1992]. The Ethics and Selected Letters , Seymour Feldman (ed.), Samuel Shirley (trans.), Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
• Sripada, Chandra, 2012. “What Makes a Manipulated Agent Unfree?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 85: 563–93.
• –––, 2016. “Self-Expression: A Deep Self Theory of Moral Responsibility,” Philosophical Studies , 173: 1203–32.
• Steward, Helen, 2012. A Metaphysics for Freedom , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Stout, Rowland, 2010. “Deviant Causal Chains,” in A Companion to the Philosophy of Action , Timothy O’Connor and Constantine Sandis (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, 159–65.
• Strawson, Galen, 1986. Freedom and Belief , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1994. “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility,” Philosophical Studies , 75: 5–24.
• –––, 2000. “The Unhelpfulness of Indeterminism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 60: 149–56.
• Strawson, P. F., 1962. “Freedom and Resentment,” Proceedings of the British Academy , 48: 187–211.
• Stump, Eleonore, 1988. “Sanctification, Hardening of the Heart, and Frankfurt’s Concept of Free Will,” Journal of Philosophy , 85: 395–420.
• –––, 1996. “Persons: Identification and Freedom,” Philosophical Topics , 24: 183–214.
• –––, 1999. “Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: The Flicker of Freedom,” Journal of Ethics , 3: 299–324.
• –––, 2003. Aquinas , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2006. “Augustine on Free Will,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine , Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 124–47.
• –––, 2010. Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Swinburne, Richard, 2013. Mind, Brain, and Free Will , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tamburro, Richard, 2017. “The Possibility and Scope of Significant Heavenly Freedom,” in Paradise Understood: New Philosophical Essays About Heaven , Ryan Byerly and Eric Silverman (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 308–28.
• Taylor, Richard, 1966. Action and Purpose , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing.
• –––, 1974. Metaphysics , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishing.
• Timpe, Kevin, 2006. “A Critique of Frankfurt-libertarianism,” Philosophia , 34: 189–202.
• Todd, Patrick, 2010. “A New Approach to Manipulation Arguments,” Philosophical Studies , 152: 127–33.
• –––, 2013. “Defending (a Modified Version of) the Zygote Argument,” Philosophical Studies , 164: 189–203.
• van Inwagen, Peter 1975. “The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism,” Philosophical Studies , 27: 185–99.
• –––, 1983. An Essay on Free Will , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2000. “Free Will Remains a Mystery,” Philosophical Perspectives , 14: 1–19.
• –––, 2004. “Freedom to Break the Laws,” Midwest Studies , 28: 334–50.
• –––, 2008. “How to Think about the Problem of Free Will,” Journal of Ethics , 12: 327–41.
• Vargas, Manuel, 2004. “Libertarianism and Skepticism about Free Will: Some Arguments against Both,” Philosophical Topics , 32: 403–26.
• –––, 2007. “Revisionism,” in Four Views on Free Will , John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 126–64.
• –––, 2013. Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Velleman, J. David, 1992. “What Happens When Someone Acts?” Mind , 101: 461–81.
• –––, 2009. How We Get Along , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Vicens, Leigh, 2016. “Objective Probabilities of Free Choice,” Res Philosophica , 93: 125–35.
• Vihvelin, Kadri, 2004. “Free Will Demystified: A Dispositional Account,” Philosophical Topics , 32: 427–50.
• –––, 2013. Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn’t Matter , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Vilhauer, Ben, 2012. “Taking Free Will Skepticism Seriously,” Philosophical Quarterly , 62: 833–52.
• Wainwright, William, 1996. “Jonathan Edwards, William Rowe, and the Necessity of Creation,” in Faith, Freedom, and Rationality , Jeff Jordan and Daniel Howard-Snyder (eds.), Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 119–33.
• Wallace, R. Jay, 1994. Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1999. “Addiction as Defect of the Will: Some Philosophical Reflections,” Law and Philosophy , 18: 621–54.
• Waller, Bruce, 2011. Against Moral Responsibility , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Watson, Gary, 1975. “Free Agency,” Journal of Philosophy , 72: 205–20.
• –––, 1986. “Review of An Essay on Free Will , by Peter van Inwagen,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 46: 507–22.
• –––, 1987. “Free Action and Free Will,” Mind , 96: 154–72.
• –––, 1996. “Two Faces of Responsibility,” Philosophical Topics , 24: 227–48.
• Wegner, Daniel, 2002. The Illusion of Conscious Will , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Whittle, Ann, 2010. “Dispositional Abilities,” Philosopher’s Imprint , 10 (12), Whittle 2010 available online .
• –––, 2022. Freedom and Responsibility in Context , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Widerker, David, 1995. “Libertarianism and Frankfurt’s Attack on the Principle of Alternative Possibilities,” Philosophical Review , 104: 247–61.
• –––, 2006. “Libertarianism and the Philosophical Significance of Frankfurt Scenarios,” Journal of Philosophy , 103: 163–87.
• Widerker, David and Michael McKenna, 2003. Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: Essays on the Importance of Alternative Possibilities , Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
• Widerker, David and Goetz, Stewart, 2013. “Fischer against the Dilemma Defense: The Defense Prevails,” Analysis , 73: 283–95.
• Wiggins, David 1973. “Towards a Reasonable Libertarianism,” in Essays on Freedom and Action , Ted Honderich (ed.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 31–62.
• Wolf, Susan, 1990. Freedom within Reason , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zagzebski, Linda, 2000. “Does Libertarian Freedom Require Alternative Possibilities?” Philosophical Perspectives , 14: 231–48.
• Zimmerman, Dean, 2018. “Ever Better Situations and the Failure of Expression Principles,” Faith and Philosophy , 35 (4): 408–16.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website , edited by Ted Honderich (University College London)
• Bibliography on Free Will , at philpapers.org.

action | agency | blame | causation: the metaphysics of | compatibilism | determinism: causal | fatalism | freedom: divine | free will: divine foreknowledge and | incompatibilism: (nondeterministic) theories of free will | incompatibilism: arguments for | moral responsibility | quantum mechanics | skepticism: about moral responsibility

Copyright © 2022 by Timothy O’Connor < toconnor @ indiana . edu > Christopher Franklin < cefranklin @ gcc . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Essay Guides
• Other Essays
• How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

An ethics essay is a type of academic writing that explores ethical issues and dilemmas. Students should evaluates them in terms of moral principles and values. The purpose of an ethics essay is to examine the moral implications of a particular issue, and provide a reasoned argument in support of an ethical perspective.

Writing an essay about ethics is a tough task for most students. The process involves creating an outline to guide your arguments about a topic and planning your ideas to convince the reader of your feelings about a difficult issue. If you still need assistance putting together your thoughts in composing a good paper, you have come to the right place. We have provided a series of steps and tips to show how you can achieve success in writing. This guide will tell you how to write an ethics paper using ethical essay examples to understand every step it takes to be proficient. In case you don’t have time for writing, get in touch with our professional essay writers for hire . Our experts work hard to supply students with excellent essays.

What Is an Ethics Essay?

An ethics essay uses moral theories to build arguments on an issue. You describe a controversial problem and examine it to determine how it affects individuals or society. Ethics papers analyze arguments on both sides of a possible dilemma, focusing on right and wrong. The analysis gained can be used to solve real-life cases. Before embarking on writing an ethical essay, keep in mind that most individuals follow moral principles. From a social context perspective, these rules define how a human behaves or acts towards another. Therefore, your theme essay on ethics needs to demonstrate how a person feels about these moral principles. More specifically, your task is to show how significant that issue is and discuss if you value or discredit it.

Purpose of an Essay on Ethics

The primary purpose of an ethics essay is to initiate an argument on a moral issue using reasoning and critical evidence. Instead of providing general information about a problem, you present solid arguments about how you view the moral concern and how it affects you or society. When writing an ethical paper, you demonstrate philosophical competence, using appropriate moral perspectives and principles.

Things to Write an Essay About Ethics On

Before you start to write ethics essays, consider a topic you can easily address. In most cases, an ethical issues essay analyzes right and wrong. This includes discussing ethics and morals and how they contribute to the right behaviors. You can also talk about work ethic, code of conduct, and how employees promote or disregard the need for change. However, you can explore other areas by asking yourself what ethics mean to you. Think about how a recent game you watched with friends started a controversial argument. Or maybe a newspaper that highlighted a story you felt was misunderstood or blown out of proportion. This way, you can come up with an excellent topic that resonates with your personal ethics and beliefs.

Ethics Paper Outline

Sometimes, you will be asked to submit an outline before writing an ethics paper. Creating an outline for an ethics paper is an essential step in creating a good essay. You can use it to arrange your points and supporting evidence before writing. It also helps organize your thoughts, enabling you to fill any gaps in your ideas. The outline for an essay should contain short and numbered sentences to cover the format and outline. Each section is structured to enable you to plan your work and include all sources in writing an ethics paper. An ethics essay outline is as follows:

• Background information
• Thesis statement
• Restate thesis statement
• Summarize key points
• Final thoughts on the topic

Using this outline will improve clarity and focus throughout your writing process.

Ethical Essay Structure

Ethics essays are similar to other essays based on their format, outline, and structure. An ethical essay should have a well-defined introduction, body, and conclusion section as its structure. When planning your ideas, make sure that the introduction and conclusion are around 20 percent of the paper, leaving the rest to the body. We will take a detailed look at what each part entails and give examples that are going to help you understand them better.  Refer to our essay structure examples to find a fitting way of organizing your writing.

Ethics Paper Introduction

An ethics essay introduction gives a synopsis of your main argument. One step on how to write an introduction for an ethics paper is telling about the topic and describing its background information. This paragraph should be brief and straight to the point. It informs readers what your position is on that issue. Start with an essay hook to generate interest from your audience. It can be a question you will address or a misunderstanding that leads up to your main argument. You can also add more perspectives to be discussed; this will inform readers on what to expect in the paper.

Ethics Essay Introduction Example

You can find many ethics essay introduction examples on the internet. In this guide, we have written an excellent extract to demonstrate how it should be structured. As you read, examine how it begins with a hook and then provides background information on an issue. 

In this example, the first sentence of the introduction makes a claim or uses a question to hook the reader.

Ethics Essay Thesis Statement

An ethics paper must contain a thesis statement in the first paragraph. Learning how to write a thesis statement for an ethics paper is necessary as readers often look at it to gauge whether the essay is worth their time.

When you deviate away from the thesis, your whole paper loses meaning. In ethics essays, your thesis statement is a roadmap in writing, stressing your position on the problem and giving reasons for taking that stance. It should focus on a specific element of the issue being discussed. When writing a thesis statement, ensure that you can easily make arguments for or against its stance.

Ethical Paper Thesis Example

Look at this example of an ethics paper thesis statement and examine how well it has been written to state a position and provide reasons for doing so:

The above thesis statement example is clear and concise, indicating that this paper will highlight the effects of dishonesty in society. Moreover, it focuses on aspects of personal and professional relationships.

Ethics Essay Body

The body section is the heart of an ethics paper as it presents the author's main points. In an ethical essay, each body paragraph has several elements that should explain your main idea. These include:

• A topic sentence that is precise and reiterates your stance on the issue.
• Evidence supporting it.
• Examples that illustrate your argument.
• A thorough analysis showing how the evidence and examples relate to that issue.
• A transition sentence that connects one paragraph to another with the help of essay transitions .

When you write an ethics essay, adding relevant examples strengthens your main point and makes it easy for others to understand and comprehend your argument. 

Body Paragraph for Ethics Paper Example

A good body paragraph must have a well-defined topic sentence that makes a claim and includes evidence and examples to support it. Look at part of an example of ethics essay body paragraph below and see how its idea has been developed:

Ethics Essay Conclusion

A concluding paragraph shares the summary and overview of the author's main arguments. Many students need clarification on what should be included in the essay conclusion and how best to get a reader's attention. When writing an ethics paper conclusion, consider the following:

• Restate the thesis statement to emphasize your position.
• Summarize its main points and evidence.
• Final thoughts on the issue and any other considerations.

You can also reflect on the topic or acknowledge any possible challenges or questions that have not been answered. A closing statement should present a call to action on the problem based on your position.

Sample Ethics Paper Conclusion

The conclusion paragraph restates the thesis statement and summarizes the arguments presented in that paper. The sample conclusion for an ethical essay example below demonstrates how you should write a concluding statement.  

In the above extract, the writer gives final thoughts on the topic, urging readers to adopt honest behavior.

How to Write an Ethics Paper?

As you learn how to write an ethics essay, it is not advised to immediately choose a topic and begin writing. When you follow this method, you will get stuck or fail to present concrete ideas. A good writer understands the importance of planning. As a fact, you should organize your work and ensure it captures key elements that shed more light on your arguments. Hence, following the essay structure and creating an outline to guide your writing process is the best approach. In the following segment, we have highlighted step-by-step techniques on how to write a good ethics paper.

1. Pick a Topic

Before writing ethical papers, brainstorm to find ideal topics that can be easily debated. For starters, make a list, then select a title that presents a moral issue that may be explained and addressed from opposing sides. Make sure you choose one that interests you. Here are a few ideas to help you search for topics:

• Review current trends affecting people.
• Think about your personal experiences.
• Study different moral theories and principles.
• Examine classical moral dilemmas.

Once you find a suitable topic and are ready, start to write your ethics essay, conduct preliminary research, and ascertain that there are enough sources to support it.

2. Conduct In-Depth Research

Once you choose a topic for your essay, the next step is gathering sufficient information about it. Conducting in-depth research entails looking through scholarly journals to find credible material. Ensure you note down all sources you found helpful to assist you on how to write your ethics paper. Use the following steps to help you conduct your research:

• Clearly state and define a problem you want to discuss.
• This will guide your research process.
• Develop keywords that match the topic.
• Begin searching from a wide perspective. This will allow you to collect more information, then narrow it down by using the identified words above.

3. Develop an Ethics Essay Outline

An outline will ease up your writing process when developing an ethic essay. As you develop a paper on ethics, jot down factual ideas that will build your paragraphs for each section. Include the following steps in your process:

• Review the topic and information gathered to write a thesis statement.
• Identify the main arguments you want to discuss and include their evidence.
• Group them into sections, each presenting a new idea that supports the thesis.
• Write an outline.
• Review and refine it.

Examples can also be included to support your main arguments. The structure should be sequential, coherent, and with a good flow from beginning to end. When you follow all steps, you can create an engaging and organized outline that will help you write a good essay.

4. Write an Ethics Essay

Once you have selected a topic, conducted research, and outlined your main points, you can begin writing an essay . Ensure you adhere to the ethics paper format you have chosen. Start an ethics paper with an overview of your topic to capture the readers' attention. Build upon your paper by avoiding ambiguous arguments and using the outline to help you write your essay on ethics. Finish the introduction paragraph with a thesis statement that explains your main position.  Expand on your thesis statement in all essay paragraphs. Each paragraph should start with a topic sentence and provide evidence plus an example to solidify your argument, strengthen the main point, and let readers see the reasoning behind your stance. Finally, conclude the essay by restating your thesis statement and summarizing all key ideas. Your conclusion should engage the reader, posing questions or urging them to reflect on the issue and how it will impact them.

5. Proofread Your Ethics Essay

Proofreading your essay is the last step as you countercheck any grammatical or structural errors in your essay. When writing your ethic paper, typical mistakes you could encounter include the following:

• Spelling errors: e.g., there, they’re, their.
• Homophone words: such as new vs. knew.
• Inconsistencies: like mixing British and American words, e.g., color vs. color.
• Formatting issues: e.g., double spacing, different font types.

While proofreading your ethical issue essay, read it aloud to detect lexical errors or ambiguous phrases that distort its meaning. Verify your information and ensure it is relevant and up-to-date. You can ask your fellow student to read the essay and give feedback on its structure and quality.

Ethics Essay Examples

Writing an essay is challenging without the right steps. There are so many ethics paper examples on the internet, however, we have provided a list of free ethics essay examples below that are well-structured and have a solid argument to help you write your paper. Click on them and see how each writing step has been integrated. Ethics essay example 1

Ethics essay example 2

Ethics essay example 3

Ethics essay example 4

College ethics essay example 5

Ethics Essay Writing Tips

When writing papers on ethics, here are several tips to help you complete an excellent essay:

• Choose a narrow topic and avoid broad subjects, as it is easy to cover the topic in detail.
• Ensure you have background information. A good understanding of a topic can make it easy to apply all necessary moral theories and principles in writing your paper.
• State your position clearly. It is important to be sure about your stance as it will allow you to draft your arguments accordingly.
• When writing ethics essays, be mindful of your audience. Provide arguments that they can understand.
• Integrate solid examples into your essay. Morality can be hard to understand; therefore, using them will help a reader grasp these concepts.

Bottom Line on Writing an Ethics Paper

Creating this essay is a common exercise in academics that allows students to build critical skills. When you begin writing, state your stance on an issue and provide arguments to support your position. This guide gives information on how to write an ethics essay as well as examples of ethics papers. Remember to follow these points in your writing:

• Create an outline highlighting your main points.
• Write an effective introduction and provide background information on an issue.
• Include a thesis statement.
• Develop concrete arguments and their counterarguments, and use examples.
• Sum up all your key points in your conclusion and restate your thesis statement.

Contact our academic writing platform and have your challenge solved. Here, you can order essays and papers on any topic and enjoy top quality. 

Daniel Howard is an Essay Writing guru. He helps students create essays that will strike a chord with the readers.

You may also like

Imagine living in a world where people only lie, and honesty is becoming a scarce commodity. Indeed, modern society is facing this reality as truth and deception can no longer be separated. Technology has facilitated a quick transmission of voluminous information, whereas it's hard separating facts from opinions.

The moral implications of dishonesty are far-reaching as they undermine trust, integrity, and other foundations of society, damaging personal and professional relationships. 

Honesty is an essential component of professional integrity. In many fields, trust and credibility are crucial for professionals to build relationships and success. For example, a doctor who is dishonest about a potential side effect of a medication is not only acting unethically but also putting the health and well-being of their patients at risk. Similarly, a dishonest businessman could achieve short-term benefits but will lose their client’s trust.

In conclusion, the implications of dishonesty and the importance of honesty in our lives cannot be overstated. Honesty builds solid relationships, effective communication, and better decision-making. This essay has explored how dishonesty impacts people and that we should value honesty. We hope this essay will help readers assess their behavior and work towards being more honest in their lives.

Essay on Ethics for Students and Children

500+ words essay on ethics.

Essay on Ethics – Ethics refers to the concepts of right and wrong conduct. Furthermore, ethics is basically a branch of philosophy dealing with the issue of morality. Moreover, ethics consist of the rules of behavior. It certainly defines how a person should behave in specific situations. The origin of ethics is old and it started from the Stone Age . Most noteworthy, over the centuries many religions and philosophers have made contributions to ethics.

Branches of Ethics

First of all, comes the descriptive branch of ethics. Descriptive ethics involve what people actually believe to be right or wrong. On the basis of this, the law decides whether certain human actions are acceptable or not. Most noteworthy, the moral principles of society keep changing from time to time. Therefore, descriptive ethics are also known as comparative ethics. This is because; it compares the ethics of past and present as well as ethics of one society and another.

Normative ethics is another important branch of ethics. Moreover, Normative ethics deals with certain norms or set of considerations. Furthermore, these norms or set of considerations dictate how one should act. Therefore, normative ethics sets out the rightness or wrongness of actions or behaviours. Another name for normative ethics is prescriptive ethics. This is because; it has principles which determine whether an action is right or wrong.

Meta-ethics consists of the origin of the ethical concepts themselves. Meta-ethics is not concerned whether an action is good or evil. Rather, meta-ethics questions what morality itself is. Therefore, meta-ethics questions the very essence of goodness or rightness. Most noteworthy, it is a highly abstract way of analyzing ethics.

Applied ethics involves philosophical examination or certain private and public life issues. Furthermore, this examination of issues takes place from a moral standpoint. Moreover, this branch of ethics is very essential for professionals. Also, these professionals belong to different walks of life and include doctors , teachers , administrators, rulers.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Applications of Ethics

Bioethicists deal with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, and philosophy. Furthermore, Bioethics refers to the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and medicine .

Ethics also have a significant application in business. Moreover, business ethics examines ethical principles in relation to a business environment.

Military ethics involve the questions regarding the application of ethos of the soldier. Furthermore, military ethics involves the laws of war. Moreover, it also includes the question of justification of initiating military force.

Public sector ethics deals with a set of principles that guide public officials in their service. Furthermore, the public sector involves the morality of decision making. Most noteworthy, it consists of the question of what best serves the public’s interests.

In conclusion, ethics is certainly one of the most important requirements of humanity. Furthermore, without ethics, the world would have been an evil and chaotic place. Also, the advancement of humanity is not possible without ethics. There must be widespread awareness of ethics among the youth of society.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

  Take 10% OFF— Expires in h m s Use code save10u during checkout.

Chat with us

• Live Chat Talk to a specialist
• Self-service options
• Search FAQs Fast answers, no waiting
• Ultius 101 New client? Click here
• Messenger  

International support numbers

For reference only, subject to Terms and Fair Use policies.

• How it Works

Learn more about us

• Future writers
• Explore further

Ultius Blog

Sample essay on free will and moral responsibility.

Select network

Free will is a fundamental aspect of modern philosophy. This sample philosophy paper explores how moral responsibility and free will represent an important area of moral debate between philosophers. This type of writing would of course be seen in a philosophy course, but many people might also be inclined to write an essay about their opinions on free will for personal reasons.

History of free will and moral responsibility

In our history, free will and moral responsibility have been longstanding debates amongst philosophers. Some contend that free will does not exist while others believe we have control over our actions and decisions. For the most part, determinists believe that free will does not exist because our fate is predetermined. An example of this philosophy is found in the Book of Genisis .

The biblical story states God created man for a purpose and designed them to worship him. Since God designed humans to operate in a certain fashion and he knew the outcome, it could be argued from a determinist point of view that free will didn't exist. Because our actions are determined, it seems that we are unable to bear any responsibility for our acts.

Galen Strawson has suggested that “in order to be truly deserving, we must be responsible for that which makes us deserving.”

However, Strawson also has implied that we are unable to be responsible. We are unable to be responsible because, as determinists suggest, all our decisions are premade; therefore, we do not act of our own free will. Consequently, because our actions are not the cause of our free will, we cannot be truly deserving because we lack responsibility for what we do.

Defining free will

Free will implies we are able to choose the majority of our actions ("Free will," 2013). While we would expect to choose the right course of action, we often make bad decisions. This reflects the thinking that we do not have free will because if we were genuinely and consistently capable of benevolence, we would freely decide to make the ‘right’ decisions.

In order for free will to be tangible, an individual would have to have control over his or her actions regardless of any external factors. Analyzing the human brain's development over a lifetime proves people have the potential for cognitive reasoning and to make their own decisions.

Casado has argued “the inevitability of free will is such that if one considers freedom an illusion, the internal perspective – and one’s own everyday life – would be totally contradictory” ( 2011, p. 369).

On the other hand, while we can determine whether or not we will wake up the next day, it is not an aspect of our free will because we cannot control this. Incidentally, determinism suggests everything happens exactly the way it should have happened because it is a universal law ("Determinism," 2013). In this way, our free will is merely an illusion.

Have a philosophy assignment? Think about buying an essay from Ultius .

The determinism viewpoint

For example, if we decided the previous night that we would wake up at noon, we are unable to control this even with an alarm clock. One, we may die in our sleep. Obviously, as most would agree, we did not choose this. Perhaps we were murdered in our sleep. In that case, was it our destiny to become a victim of violent crimes, or was it our destiny to be murdered as we slept? Others would mention that the murderer was the sole cause of the violence and it their free will to decide to kill.

Therefore, the same people might argue that the murderer deserved a specific punishment. The key question, then, is the free will of the murderer. If we were preordained to die in the middle of the night at the hand of the murderer, then the choice of death never actually existed. Hence, the very question of choice based on free will is an illusion.

Considering that our wills are absolutely subject to the environment in which they are articulated in, we are not obligated to take responsibility for them as the product of their environment. For example, if we were born in the United States, our actions are the result of our country’s laws. Our constitutional laws allow us the right to bear arms and have access to legal representation. In addition, our constitutional laws allow us the freedom to express our thoughts through spoken and written mediums and the freedom to believe in a higher power or not. We often believe we are free to act and do what we want because of our free will.

Harris (2012) has agreed that “free will is more than an illusion (or less), in that it cannot even be rendered coherent” conceptually.

Moral judgments, decisions, and responsibility for free will

Either our wills are determined by prior causes, and we are not responsible for them, or they are a product of chance, and we are not responsible for them” (p. 46). This being the case, can we be deserving if we can so easily deflect the root of our will and actions? Perhaps, our hypothetical murder shot us. It could be argued that gun laws in the United States provided them with the mean to commit murder.

Either the murderer got a hold of a gun by chance or he or she was able to purchase one. While the purchase is not likely, one would have to assume that someone, maybe earlier, purchased the weapon. Therefore, it was actually the buyer’s action that allowed this particular crime to take place. Essentially, both would ‘deserve’ some sort of punishment.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary (2001), the word “deserving” means "Worthy, as of reward or praise” (p. 236), so it regards to punishments, it seems deserving has a positive meaning.

Free will and changing societal views

However, the meanings will change depending on our position. For example, some would suggest that the murderer acted with his or her own free will. However, once they are caught and convicted, they are no longer free in the sense that they can go wherever they want. On the other hand, they are free to think however they want.

If they choose to reenact their crimes in their thoughts, they are free to do so. Some many say, in the case of the murderer, he or she is held responsible for his or her crime, thus he or she deserves blame. However, if the murderer had a mental illness and was unaware he or she committed a crime, should we still consider that the murderer acted with his or her free will? With that in mind, it seems that Strawson’s argument is valid because the murderer was not acting of his or her free will.

Many would consider Strawson to be a “free will pessimist” (Timpe c. Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and Pessimism, 2006, para. 5). Strawson does not believe we have the ability to act on our own free will. However, he does not believe our actions are predetermined either.

Specifically, in his article “Luck Swallows Everything,” Strawson (1998) has claimed that “One cannot be ultimately responsible for one's character or mental nature in any way at all” (para. 33).

Determining when free will is not applicable

While some would agree young children and disabled adults would not hold any responsibility, others would claim that criminals should bear responsibility when they commit a crime. What if the actions are caused by both nature and nurturing of the parents ? Or, what if they're caused by prior events including a chain of events that goes back before we are born, libertarians do not see how we can feel responsible for them. If our actions are directly caused by chance, they are simply random and determinists do not see how we can feel responsible for them (The Information Philosopher Responsibility n.d.).

After all, one would not argue that murderers are worthy of a positive reward; however, Strawson has argued that we, whether good or evil, do not deserve any types of rewards. Instead, our actions and their consequences are based on luck or bad luck. In order to have ultimate moral responsibility for an action, the act must originate from something that is separate from us.

We consider free will the ability to act or do as we want; however, there is a difference between freedom of action and freedom of will. Freedom of action suggests we are able to physically act upon our desire. In a way, some believe that freedom of will is the choice that precedes that action. In addition to freedom of act or will, free will also suggests we have a sense of moral responsibility. This moral responsibility, however, is not entirely specified. For example, is this responsibility to ourselves or those around us? While this is a question that may never be answered, no matter how many essays are written on the subject, it is one that many consider important to ask, nonetheless.

https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-free-will-and-moral-responsibility.html

• Chicago Style

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Essay on Free Will and Moral Responsibility." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. Ultius Blog, 18 May. 2014. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-free-will-and-moral-responsibility.html

Copied to clipboard

Click here for more help with MLA citations.

Ultius, Inc. (2014, May 18). Sample Essay on Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Retrieved from Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-free-will-and-moral-responsibility.html

Click here for more help with APA citations.

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Essay on Free Will and Moral Responsibility." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. May 18, 2014 https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-essay-on-free-will-and-moral-responsibility.html.

Click here for more help with CMS citations.

Click here for more help with Turabian citations.

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions and matches customers with highly qualified writers for sample writing, academic editing, and business writing. 

Tested Daily

Click to Verify

About The Author

This post was written by Ultius.

• Writer Options
• Custom Writing
• Business Documents
• Support Desk
• +1-800-405-2972
• Submit bug report
• A+ BBB Rating!

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Connect with great American writers and get 24/7 support.

© 2024 Ultius, Inc.

• Refund & Cancellation Policy

Free Money For College!

Yeah. You read that right —We're giving away free scholarship money! Our next drawing will be held soon.

Our next winner will receive over $500 in funds. Funds can be used for tuition, books, housing, and/or other school expenses. Apply today for your chance to win!

* We will never share your email with third party advertisers or send you spam.

** By providing my email address, I am consenting to reasonable communications from Ultius regarding the promotion.

Past winner

• Name Samantha M.
• From Pepperdine University '22
• Studies Psychology
• Won $2,000.00
• Award SEED Scholarship
• Awarded Sep. 5, 2018

Thanks for filling that out.

Check your inbox for an email about the scholarship and how to apply.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

5 Explaining Normativity: Reason and the Will

Author Webpage

• Published: January 2002
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

The relation between reason and the will is explored in reference to the nature of reasons and of normativity. Must we hold beliefs for decisive reasons? Can we be unreflectively motivated by reasons? It is maintained that one need not necessarily be motivated by all the reasons that apply to an agent (i.e. to conform to reason does not entail knowing all the reasons that apply to you). Reasons are argued to be optional to the extent that the fact that there are reasons for a certain response make it an eligible response, but not one that is wrong not to adopt. The mediation of the will helps to explain how we are governed by our rationality.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

How to Write an Ethics Essay: Unlocking the Roadmap to Success

When students get assigned to ethics essay, most of them think, "I wish someone could just write an ethics essay instead of me." Indeed, writing an A-level paper can be tough. But our ' write my paper ' team has you covered. Read on to find handy ethics essay expert tips on writing a brilliant essay!

What Is Ethics Essay?

Ethical essays are common in schools and colleges. This is a short form of a writing assignment given to students to help them develop and improve essential writing skills. Typically, such papers are between 1-5 pages long and have a free composition.

Basically, an ethics essay is just another form of a regular essay. The only difference is its topics. As you can guess from its name, such essays focus on elaborating on issues that have moral or ethical implications in philosophy.

Now that you know the definition, let’s figure out how to write a killer essay on ethical issues.

Stuck With Your Coursework?

You can be confident that our talented writers will complete any assignment and submit your paper by the deadline you choose

Ethics Essay Purpose

The main objective of an ethics essay is to articulate a compelling argument concerning a particular stance on a moral concern. Typically, this type of essay necessitates a discussion rather than a mere summary of an ethical quandary. Within this framework, an essay exhibits resemblances to the characteristics of argumentative writing. Specifically, an ethical issue should be open to debate, implying that you must be able to present arguments on the topic.

Key Elements

We all hold varying perspectives on the same set of rules and behavioral norms. Actions that might appear peculiar or unnatural to one person can be entirely routine and socially acceptable to another. Consequently, a ' write my paper for me ' writer must address both sides of the issue. While an ethical essay should not aim to persuade readers to endorse specific behaviors, nor should it resemble an opinion essay, the writer needs to leverage certain techniques commonly employed in argumentative writing. Given its purpose, a good ethics paper should encompass key elements that are typical of an argumentative essay, including:

Significance of the topic: Discussing an ethical matter that challenges societal norms.Thesis statement: Clearly stating the primary focus of the essay.

Strong argument: Serving as a thesis statement centered on moral principles.

Supporting evidence: Providing facts and examples to bolster the arguments regarding the ethical dilemma.Counterargument: Addressing opposing viewpoints and justifying the reasoning.

Rebuttal examples: Offering additional evidence to substantiate your position.

Ethical Essay Fundamental Considerations

Academic writing encompasses a wide-ranging discipline that acquaints students of an academic or educational institution with crucial skills, including the ability to interpret, elucidate, reflect upon, and analyze a myriad of essay topics. Essentially, essay composition is a vital academic exercise that empowers students to cultivate these proficiencies. Notably, one of the essay genres frequently encountered by students is the research paper on ethics. Within the realm of philosophy, writing ethics essays involves the exploration of moral concerns, delving into concepts of right and wrong, as well as good and bad. These ethical and moral principles form the bedrock of proper conduct. In diverse settings, such as workplaces, individuals establish ethical codes and standards to govern behavior. Therefore, when composing an ethical paper, a student's central focus centers on the extent to which individuals in society adhere to or deviate from these principles of ethical behavior. Is asking to write my homework for me an ethical question? Based on the above-mentioned analysis, the answer is - yes.

Key Attributes of an Ethics Essay

Let's answer the what is ethics essay question. The definition of an ethics paper characterizes it as a type of academic writing that explores and discusses ethical principles, moral dilemmas, and issues related to right and wrong behavior. In such an essay, the author typically delves into various ethical topics, ethical theories, and the application of ethical principles in different contexts, such as personal life, professional settings, or societal matters. These attributes mold the structure of the essay. For instance, the primary characteristic is the demonstration of a topic's significance.

The second distinctive feature is formulating a thesis statement by philosophy students to elucidate the chosen topic. The third aspect comprises the presentation of arguments that buttress the thesis statement, while the fourth attribute involves considering potential counterarguments.

Furthermore, the fifth feature involves a rebuttal, where writers assert the strength of their arguments while acknowledging opposing viewpoints. The sixth and final characteristic encompasses the conclusion of an ethics paper. In this section, authors underscore the thesis statement by validating the arguments articulated in their written work.

What Sets an Ethics Essay Apart from Other Essays?

Within the realm of philosophy, various essay types exhibit distinct features that differentiate them from one another. In the case of an essay on ethics, these characteristics encompass the exploration of an ethical and moral issue, the utilization of an ethical framework to construct arguments on contentious subjects, and the elucidation of ethical dilemmas. Primarily, this type of essay centers on the exposition of ethical principles and moral considerations.

In contrast, a narrative essay primarily revolves around recounting the author's personal story, while an informative essay focuses on imparting knowledge to the audience about a specific topic. Additionally, whereas certain essays, such as narratives or college application essays, employ first-person language, an ethics essay adheres to a formal approach, utilizing third-person language.

How to Understand Ethics Essay Requirements?

When composing essays, students typically heed the guidelines set forth by their academic departments or instructors. Essentially, these instructions offer specific directives on the essay topics students are expected to explore in their papers. In the context of writing an ethics paper, students can ascertain the need to write this particular type of class assignment by examining the topic provided by their department or tutor. Furthermore, the ethics-focused topic may necessitate students to present ethical arguments related to a specific matter, delve into an ethical dilemma, or determine the ethical and legal aspects of an issue. Before you begin writing, understand that the essence of the topic should prompt students to examine and address the matter from an ethical or moral perspective.

What Is an Ethical Argument, Ethical Dilemma, and Ethical vs. Legal Implications

The fundamental components of ethics essay writing encompass ethical arguments, ethical dilemmas, and the distinctions between ethical and legal implications. For instance, "ethical arguments" involve the articulation of a position on a matter imbued with ethical and moral considerations and the subsequent defense of that stance. In this context, writers construct ethical arguments to substantiate their viewpoints on issues that pose ethical or moral quandaries, such as fraud.

Conversely, an "ethical dilemma" represents a scenario in which individuals grapple with a situation that raises ethical or moral questions, such as bribery. Authors find themselves torn between two options, one of which carries significant ethical or moral implications.

Additionally, the concept of "ethical versus legal implications" pertains to a writer's need to determine whether an issue, like bribery, should be addressed through ethical or legal avenues. This entails considering whether the matter requires ethical rectification or falls under the purview of legal remedies.

Ethics Essay Writing Structure Explained

Introduction

‍ Ethics essay introduction is essential for authors to maintain brevity and clarity. At this juncture, students should give the readers a succinct overview of the paper's purpose, focusing on the specific ethical issue they plan to address. This entails presenting their stance on the issue, a task facilitated by the formulation of a thesis statement. Through this main point, writers outline their perspectives and structure their ethics papers around supporting arguments that defend their position on a matter imbued with profound ethical or moral significance.

It's worth noting that when initiating the introductory paragraph, which serves as the gateway to writing an ethics paper, students are encouraged to commence with a captivating hook. This opening sentence can take the form of a popular misconception or a thought-provoking question designed to pique the readers' interest and set the stage for the discussion to follow.

‍ In the main body of ethical essays, students should rely on their thesis statement and the main argument as a guiding reference. In essence, this statement serves as the foundation from which they generate a range of ideas or arguments to uphold their position on the ethical or moral issue introduced in the paper's opening section.Following the established conventions of academic writing, students must initiate each body paragraph with a clear and concise topic sentence. This sentence's purpose is to introduce a specific claim or idea that they intend to expound upon within the paragraph. Moreover, learners should employ separate paragraphs to segregate their arguments logically.

Furthermore, when composing the body section, students should adhere to a structured approach, often likened to a "sandwich rule," for every body paragraph in an ethics paper or essay. This structural framework involves presenting a claim, substantiating it with supporting evidence, explaining its relevance to the paper's overarching thesis, and concluding with a transition sentence that facilitates a seamless connection to the subsequent paragraph.

The conclusion section represents the final part of an ethics paper. In this phase, an ethics essay should encompass several key elements as a brief summary. Initially, writers should reaffirm their thesis statement, reinforcing the central point of their argument. Subsequently, they should encapsulate the main arguments presented in the body paragraphs, essentially summarizing the rationale behind their positions on issues laden with ethical or moral significance.This also entails a brief review of the writer's key arguments in support of their stance.

Furthermore, authors should revisit the paper's central topic, underscoring its significance in addressing ethical or moral concerns. It is crucial to elucidate why the exploration of this issue was imperative. Importantly, students should refrain from introducing new information in the conclusion, maintaining its focus on summarizing and reinforcing the previously presented content.

Ethics Essay Outline

‍ Ethics essay writing adheres to a structured format that outlines its organization. This structure primarily consists of three sections: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. When composing these sections, it is imperative for students to ensure that they address all the essential defining elements mentioned earlier in their ethics essays or papers. In this regard, writers should consider that the introduction and conclusion sections should collectively comprise approximately 10 percent of the total word count of the ethics paper or essay. The body, serving as the main content, should make up the remaining 80 percent.Consequently, the outline for an ethics paper should follow this format:

I. Introduction

A. Engaging hook sentence.

B. Background information on the ethical dilemma.

C. The writer's central claim – the thesis statement.

II. Body Paragraphs

A. Argument: Present a stance on an argument; support this position with evidence; clarify how this evidence aligns with the argument; conclude the validity of this argument.

B. Counterargument: Introduce a counterargument to the position presented in the first body paragraph; provide evidence supporting this counter argument, opposing the argument in the previous section; explain the correctness of this counterargument and its evidence from an opposing perspective; conclude the validity of this counterargument in the context.

C. Rebuttal: Identify the weaknesses in the counterargument; address substantial evidence that underscores these weaknesses; elucidate how these weaknesses render the counterargument irrelevant; conclude by explaining why the counterargument is not valid when compared to the original argument.

III. Conclusion

A. Restate the thesis statement.

B. Summarize the argument, counterargument, and rebuttal.

C. Present a final overarching claim.

How to Write an Ethics Essay in Five Steps

So, if you need to write a good essay on ethics, where do you start? You will be surprised, but it only takes five simple steps.

See a detailed writing guide below:

• Choose a Great Topic

Before you can start writing an essay on ethics, you have to pick a relevant topic that will relate to ethics or morals. To make a good choice, focus on something that you are personally interested in. And, don’t forget to make sure that there is enough information on the selected topic so that you can find enough supporting facts and materials to disclose your topic fully.

When you have a topic, your next step is research. Use the Internet, literature, and other resources to collect enough information for your ethical issue essay. Be sure to critically assess all resources and take notes to simplify the following steps.

• Make an Outline

Next, to make the writing process simpler, you should create a detailed outline for your future essay. Be sure that the outline follows the common essay structure. Include all the major statements, arguments, and facts that you’d like to include in your essay. And don’t forget to formulate your main thesis statement.

• Compose Your Essay

Writing essays about ethics can be somewhat tough. However, with a well-defined topic and a clear outline, the process of writing shouldn’t take much time. Follow your outline to create a solid introduction, body, and conclusion of your paper and move on to the final step.

Finally, the last stage of writing a brilliant ethical issues essay is revision. Ideally, you should give yourself a few hours/days to rest after writing and refresh your mind, and then get back to proofreading and editing your work. Check the final draft for style, punctuation, grammar, vocabulary, and other mistakes to make sure it is flawless.

If possible, ask someone else to take a look at the final piece. It will never hurt to have a second pair of eyes to look at your essay and (hopefully) help you notice any errors or issues that you could’ve missed.

Ethics Writing Stressing You Out?

Order your essay today and let our experts balance the equations for you!

Ethics Essay Writing Tips

• If you struggle too much or lack time, ask professionals to write an essay for you to prevent failure and reduce stress.
• Don’t focus on rhetorical questions that you can’t really answer.
• Don’t pick too narrow or broad topics.
• Don’t hesitate to check out some samples of ethics essays before you start writing.
• Make sure you understand the chosen topic (and related terms) well and have enough materials to use in your essay.
• Keep everything simple, and don’t try to impress your professor with complex terms and formulations.
• Make sure that your essay about ethics is concise and clear. Remove everything that doesn’t bring real value.
• Use trusted sources to support the claims you make in your essay.
• Feel free to use the opinions of proven experts, as well as common misconceptions related to your topic, to make your essay look complete.
• Use scientific works of other authors to support your ideas.

Still Need Help With Ethics Essay?

Now that you have quality guidelines and tips, you should be able to handle the task.Still need help? No worries! Say, Please, write my essay , and our expert writers will help you get the highest grade. Get pro help and enjoy complete anonymity, zero plagiarism, around-the-clock support, and the lowest prices for high-quality academic help!

Our Latest Blog Posts

Writing Ethical Papers: Top Tips to Ace Your Assignment

17 August, 2021

13 minutes read

Author:  Kate Smith

Writing a complex essay paper can be a tough task for any student, especially for those who do not have their skills developed well or do not have enough time for lengthy assignments. At the same time, the majority of college students need to keep their grades high to maintain their right to receive merit-based scholarships and continue their studies the next year. To help you with your ethical papers writing, we created this guide. Below, you will find out what an ethical paper is, how to structure it and write it efficiently. 

What is an Ethical Paper?

An ethics paper is a type of an argumentative assignment that deals with a certain ethical problem that a student has to describe and solve. Also, it can be an essay where a certain controversial event or concept is elaborated through an ethical lens (e.g. moral rules and principles), or a certain ethical dilemma is explained. Since ethics is connected to moral concepts and choices, a student needs to have a fair knowledge of philosophy and get ready to answer questions related to relationships, justice, professional and social duties, the origin of good and evil, etc., to write a quality paper. Also, writing an ethics paper implies that a student should process a great amount of information regarding their topic and analyze it according to paper terms.

General Aspects of Writing an Ethics Paper

Understanding the ethical papers’ features.

Every essay has differences and features that make it unique. Writing ethical papers implies that a student will use their knowledge of morality and philosophy to resolve a certain ethical dilemma or solve a situation. It can also be a paper in which a student needs to provide their reasoning on ethical or legal circumstances that follow a social issue. Finally, it can be an assignment in which an ethical concept and its application are described. On the contrary, a history essay deals with events that took place somewhen earlier, while a narrative essay is a paper where students demonstrate their storytelling skills, etc.

Defining What Type of Essay Should Be Written

Most of the time, ethical paper topics imply that a student will write an argumentative essay; however, ethics essays can also be descriptive and expository. Each of these essay types has different guidelines for writing, so be sure you know them before you start writing your papers on ethics. In case you missed this step in your ethical paper preparation stage, you would end up writing a paper that misses many important points.

Studying the Ethical Paper Guidelines

Once you get your ethical paper assignment, look through the guidelines that your instructor provided to you. If you receive them during the class, don’t hesitate to pose any questions immediately to remove any misunderstanding before writing an ethics paper outline, or ask for references that you need to use. When you are about to write your first draft, don’t rush: read the paper instructions once again to make sure you understand what is needed from you.

Paying Attention to the Paper Topic

The next thing you need to pay attention to is the ethical paper topic: once you are given one, make sure it falls into the scope of your educational course. After that, consider what additional knowledge may be needed to elaborate on your topic and think about what courses of your program could be helpful for it. Once you are done, read through your topic again to recheck whether you understand your assignment right.

Understanding the Notions of Ethical Arguments, Ethical and Legal Implications, and Ethical Dilemma

Last but not least, another important factor is that a student has to understand the basic terms of the assignment to write a high-quality paper. Ethical arguments are a set of moral rules that are used to defend your position on an ethical issue stated in your essay topic. We refer to ethical versus legal implications when we think about the compensation for certain ethical dilemma outcomes and whether it should be a moral punishment or legal judgment. An ethical dilemma itself refers to a problem or situation which makes an individual doubt what position to take: e.g, abortion, bribery, corruption, etc.

Writing Outline and Structure of an Ethics Paper

Every essay has a structure that makes it a solid piece of writing with straight reasoning and argumentation, and an ethics paper is not an exclusion. This paper has an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Below, we will describe how each part of ethical papers should be organized and what information they should contain.

First comes the introduction. It is the opening part of your paper which helps a reader to get familiar with your topic and understand what your paper will be about. Therefore, it should contain some information on your ethics paper topics and a thesis statement, which is a central statement of your paper.

The essay body is the most substantive part of your essay where all the reasoning and arguments should be presented. Each paragraph should contain an argument that supports or contradicts your thesis statement and pieces of evidence to support your position. Pick at least three arguments to make your position clear in your essay, and then your paper will be considered well-structured.

The third part of an ethics paper outline is a conclusion, which is a finishing essay part. Its goal is to wrap up the whole essay and make the author’s position clear for the last time. The thoughtful formulation in this essay part should be especially clear and concise to demonstrate the writer’s ability to make conclusions and persuade readers.

Also, don’t forget to include the works cited page after your writing. It should mention all the reference materials that you used in your paper in the order of appearance or in the alphabetical one. This page should be formatted according to the assigned formatting style. Most often, the most frequently used format for ethical papers is APA.

20 Examples of Ethical Paper Topics

• Are there any issues in the 21st century that we can consider immoral and why?
• What is corporate ethics?
• Why is being selfish no longer an issue in 2023?
• Euthanasia: pros and cons
• Marijuana legalization: should it be allowed all over the world?
• Is abortion an ethical issue nowadays?
• Can we invent a universal religion appropriate for all?
• Is the church necessary to pray to God?
• Can we forgive infidelity and should we do it?
• How to react if you are witnessing high school bullying?
• What are the ways to respond to a family abusing individual?
• How to demand your privacy protection in a digital world?
• The history of the American ethical thought
• Can war be ethical and what should the conflicting sides do to make it possible?
• Ethical issues of keeping a zoo in 2023
• Who is in charge of controlling the world’s population?
• How to achieve equality in the world’s rich and poor gap?
• Is science ethical?
• How ethical is genetic engineering?
• Why many countries refuse to go back to carrying out the death penalty?

Ethical Papers Examples

If you still have no idea about how to write an ethics paper, looking through other students’ successful examples is always a good idea. Below, you can find a relevant ethics paper example that you can skim through and see how to build your reasoning and argumentation in your own paper.

https://www.currentschoolnews.com/education-news/ethics-essay-examples/

https://sites.psu.edu/academy/2014/11/18/essay-2-personal-ethics-and-decision-making/

Ethical Papers Writing Tips

Choose a topic that falls into the ethics course program.

In case you were not given the ethics paper topic, consider choosing it yourself. To do that, brainstorm the ethical issues that fascinate you enough to do research. List all these issues on a paper sheet and then cross out those that are too broad or require expertise that you don’t have. The next step you need to take is to choose three or four ethical topics for papers from the list and try to do a quick search online to find out whether these topics are elaborated enough to find sources and reference materials on them. Last, choose one topic that you like the most and find the most relevant one in terms of available data for reference.

Do your research

Once the topic is chosen and organized, dive deeper into it to find the most credible, reliable, and trusted service. Use your university library, online scientific journals, documentaries, and other sources to get the information from. Remember to take notes while working with every new piece of reference material to not forget the ideas that you will base your argumentation on.

Follow the guidelines for a paper outline

During the preparation for your ethical paper and the process of writing it, remember to follow your professor’s instructions (e.g. font, size, spacing, citation style, etc.). If you neglect them, your grade for the paper will decrease significantly.

Write the essay body first

Do not rush to start writing your ethics papers from the very beginning; to write a good essay, you need to have your outline and thesis statement first. Then, go to writing body paragraphs to demonstrate your expertise on the issue you are writing about. Remember that one supporting idea should be covered in one paragraph and should be followed by the piece of evidence that confirms it.

Make sure your introduction and conclusion translate the same message

After your essay body is done, write a conclusion and an introduction for your paper. The main tip regarding these ethics paper parts is that you should make them interrelated: your conclusion has to restate your introduction but not repeat it. Also, a conclusion should wrap up your writing and make it credible for the audience.

Add citations

Every top-quality paper has the works cited page and citations to demonstrate that the research on the topic has been carried out. Therefore, do not omit this point when formatting your paper: add all the sources to the works cited page and pay attention to citing throughout the text. The latter should be done according to the formatting style indicated in your instructions.

Edit your paper

Last but not least is the editing and proofreading stage that you need to carry out before you submit your paper to your instructor. Consider keeping your first draft away from sight for a day or two to have a rest, and then go back to check it for errors and redundant phrases. Don’t rush to change anything immediately after finishing your writing since you are already tired and less focused, so some mistakes may be missed.

Writing Help by Handmadewriting

If you feel that you need help with writing an ethics paper in view of its chellnging nature, you can contact us and send an order through a respective button. You can add your paper details by following all steps of the order placing process that you will find on the website. Once your order is placed, we will get back to you as soon as possible. You will be able to contact your essay writer and let them know all your wishes regarding your ethical paper.

Our writers have expertise in writing ethical papers including, so you don’t need to worry about the quality of the essay that you will receive. Your assignment will be delivered on time and at a reasonable price. Note that urgent papers will cost slightly more than assignments with a postponed deadline, so do not wait too long to make your order. We will be glad to assist you with your writing and guarantee 24/7 support until you receive your paper.

Lastly, remember that no paper can be written overnight, so if you intend to complete your paper in a few hours, you can end up writing only a first draft with imperfections. If you have only half a day before your task is due, feel free to place an urgent order, and we will deliver it in just three hours.

A life lesson in Romeo and Juliet taught by death

Due to human nature, we draw conclusions only when life gives us a lesson since the experience of others is not so effective and powerful. Therefore, when analyzing and sorting out common problems we face, we may trace a parallel with well-known book characters or real historical figures. Moreover, we often compare our situations with […]

Ethical Research Paper Topics

Writing a research paper on ethics is not an easy task, especially if you do not possess excellent writing skills and do not like to contemplate controversial questions. But an ethics course is obligatory in all higher education institutions, and students have to look for a way out and be creative. When you find an […]

Art Research Paper Topics

Students obtaining degrees in fine art and art & design programs most commonly need to write a paper on art topics. However, this subject is becoming more popular in educational institutions for expanding students’ horizons. Thus, both groups of receivers of education: those who are into arts and those who only get acquainted with art […]

What is Ethics?

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources
• Ethical Decision Making

Ethics is based on well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.

Some years ago, sociologist Raymond Baumhart asked business people, "What does ethics mean to you?" Among their replies were the following:

"Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong." "Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs." "Being ethical is doing what the law requires." "Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts." "I don't know what the word means."

These replies might be typical of our own. The meaning of "ethics" is hard to pin down, and the views many people have about ethics are shaky.

Like Baumhart's first respondent, many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.

Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the devout religious person. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.

Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the old apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.

Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.

Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever society accepts," then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.

What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.

Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.

This article appeared originally in  Issues in Ethics  IIE V1 N1 (Fall 1987). Revised in 2010.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write an Ethics Paper

Last Updated: May 16, 2023 Approved

This article was co-authored by Emily Listmann, MA . Emily Listmann is a private tutor in San Carlos, California. She has worked as a Social Studies Teacher, Curriculum Coordinator, and an SAT Prep Teacher. She received her MA in Education from the Stanford Graduate School of Education in 2014. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, 100% of readers who voted found the article helpful, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 251,919 times.

Writing an ethics paper can present some unique challenges. For the most part, the paper will be written like any other essay or research paper, but there are some key differences. An ethics paper will generally require you to argue for a specific position rather than simply present an overview of an issue. Arguing this position will also involve presenting counterarguments and then refuting them. Finally, ensuring that your reasoning is valid and sound and citing the appropriate sources will allow you to write an ethics paper that will satisfy any critic.

Getting Started

• What is the main objective of the assignment?
• What specific things do you need to do in order to get a good grade?
• How much time will you need to complete the assignment?

• For example, you might begin with a topic of "ethical problems of euthanasia." This is very broad, and so forms a good starting point.

• Remember, you may refine your topic even further after you have begun writing your paper. This is perfectly acceptable, and is part of the advantage of writing a paper in multiple drafts.

• For example, you might include issues such as: "describing specifically what is meant by 'extreme, constant pain.' "Other issues might include, "the rights and responsibilities of physicians regarding euthanasia," and "voluntary versus involuntary euthanasia."
• After making this list, group or order them in some way. For example, you might imagine yourself taking the position that euthanasia is acceptable in this circumstance, and you could order the issues based on how you would draw supporting evidence and build your claim.

Developing Your Thesis Statement

• In your thesis, you should take a specific stand on the ethical issue. For example, you might write your thesis as follows: "Euthanasia is an immoral option even when patients are in constant, extreme pain."

• For example, this thesis statement is ambiguous: "Patients should not undergo euthanasia even when suffering constant, extreme pain." With how it's worded, it's unclear whether you mean that euthanasia should be outlawed or that it is morally wrong.
• Clarify your position to create a strong thesis: "Euthanasia is an immoral option even when patients are in constant, extreme pain."

• For example, in the thesis, "It is immoral for patients to choose euthanasia even when suffering constant, extreme pain," the moral burden is on the patient's actions. The author of this thesis would need to make sure to focus on the patient in the essay and not to focus on the moral implications of the doctor's actions.
• If the thesis you have written does not reflect what you want to argue in your paper, start over and draft a new thesis statement.

Conducting Research

• Ask a librarian for help finding sources if you are not sure how to access your library’s databases.
• A simple way to strengthen your argument through citations is by incorporating some relevant statistics. Simple statistics can have a major impact if presented after you've made a bold assertion. For instance, you may claim that the patient's family members would be unduly traumatized if the patient chose euthanasia, and then cite a university study that catalogued a majority of families reporting trauma or stress in this situation.
• Another helpful citation is one in which the broad issue itself is discussed. For instance, you might cite a prominent ethicist's position on your issue to strengthen your position.

• The author and his or her credentials. Does the source provide the author’s first and last name and credentials (M.D., Ph.D, etc.)? Steer clear of sources without an author attached to them or that lack credentials when credentials seem crucial, such as in an article about a medical subject. [3] X Research source
• Type of publication. Is the publication a book, journal, magazine, or website? Is the publisher an academic or educational institution? Does the publisher have a motive other than education? Who is the intended audience? Ask yourself these questions to determine if this source is reliable. For example, a university or government website might be reliable, but a site that sells items may be biased toward what they're selling.
• Citations. How well has the author researched his or her topic? Check the author’s bibliography or works cited page. If the author has not provided any sources, then you may want to look for a different source. [4] X Research source
• Bias. Has the author presented an objective, well-reasoned account of the topic? If the sources seems skewed towards one side of the argument, then it may not be a good choice. [5] X Research source
• Publication date. Does this source present the most up to date information on the subject? If the sources is outdated, then try to find something more recent. [6] X Research source

• To check for comprehension after reading a source, try to summarize the source in your own words and generate a response to the author’s main argument. If you cannot do one or both of these things, then you may need to read the source again.
• Creating notecards for your sources may also help you to organize your ideas. Write the citation for the source on the top of the notecard, then write a brief summary and response to the article in the lined area of the notecard. [7] X Research source

• Remember to indicate when you have quoted a source in your notes by putting it into quotation marks and including information about the source such as the author’s name, article or book title, and page number. [8] X Research source

Writing and Revising Your Ethics Paper

• To expand on your outline, write a couple of sentences describing and/or explaining each of the items in your outline. Include a relevant source for each item as well.

• Check your outline to see if you have covered each of these items in this order. If not, you will need to add a section and use your sources to help inform that section.

• In your first draft, focus on the quality of the argument, rather than the quality of the prose. If the argument is structured well and each conclusion is supported by your reasoning and by cited evidence, you will be able to focus on the writing itself on the second draft.
• Unless major revisions are needed to your argument (for example, if you have decided to change your thesis statement), use the second draft to strengthen your writing. Focus on sentence lengths and structures, vocabulary, and other aspects of the prose itself.

• Try to allow yourself a few days or even a week to revise your paper before it is due. If you do not allow yourself enough time to revise, then you will be more prone to making simple mistakes and your grade may suffer as a result. [10] X Research source

• Does my paper fulfill the requirements of the assignment? How might it score according to the rubric provided by my instructor?
• What is your main point? How might you clarify your main point?
• Who is your audience? Have you considered their needs and expectations?
• What is your purpose? Have you accomplished your purpose with this paper?
• How effective is your evidence? How might your strengthen your evidence?
• Does every part of your paper relate back to your thesis? How might you improve these connections?
• Is anything confusing about your language or organization? How might your clarify your language or organization?
• Have you made any errors with grammar, punctuation, or spelling? How can you correct these errors?
• What might someone who disagrees with you say about your paper? How can you address these opposing arguments in your paper? [11] X Research source

• As you read your paper out loud, highlight or circle any errors and revise as necessary before printing your final copy.

Community Q&A

• If at all possible, have someone else read through your paper before submitting it. They can provide valuable feedback on style as well as catching grammatical errors. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 1

Things You'll Need

• Word-processing software
• Access to your library’s databases
• Pencil and highlighter

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/688/1/
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/
• ↑ http://guides.jwcc.edu/content.php?pid=65900&sid=538553
• ↑ http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/reading-and-researching/notes-from-research
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/658/05/
• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/561/05/

About This Article

To write an ethics paper, start by researching the issue you want to write about and evaluating your sources for potential bias and trustworthiness. Next, develop a thesis statement that takes a specific stand on the issue and create an outline that includes the key arguments. As you write, avoid using words like “could” or “might,” which will seem ambiguous to the reader. Once you’ve finished your paper, take a break for a few days so your mind is clear, then go back and revise what you wrote, focusing on the quality of your argument. For tips from our Education reviewer on how to annotate source material as you research, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Kristal Okeke

Apr 3, 2017

Did this article help you?

Tumelo Ratladi

Aug 9, 2016

Timela Crutcher

Dec 11, 2016

Aug 29, 2016

Jimm Hopper

Apr 18, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

How to Write an Ethics Paper or Essay With Tips and Examples

22 December 2023

last updated

An ethics essay is one type of essays that students write to present their ideas about what is good or bad, right or wrong, white or black, and approved or prohibited in terms of various theories, approaches, techniques, practices, actions, behaviors, responsibilities, morals, results, obligations, virtues, and others, developing essential writing skills. When writing an ethics paper, students should understand that such an essay differs from other assignments in that it focuses on elaborating on issues with ethical or moral implications in philosophy. Basically, this elaboration entails writers arguing for a stand on an ethical or moral issue. Moreover, when writing an ethics essay, students should follow a basic essay structure: introduction-body-conclusion. In each of these sections, learners should capture critical elements, such as a thesis statement in the introduction part, topic sentences in body paragraphs, and a thesis restatement in the conclusion part. Hence, students need to learn how to write a good ethics paper or essay to demonstrate their knowledge of philosophy by using ethical and moral sides of an issue.

General Aspects of Writing an Ethics Paper or Essay

Academic writing is a broad discipline that exposes students to critical skills, including interpretation, explanation, reflection, and analysis of many essay topics . Basically, essay writing is one of the academic exercises that enable students to build these skills. In particular, one of the essay types that students write is a research paper on ethics. When writing ethics essays in philosophy, students address issues related to morality, such as aspects of right and wrong or good and bad. Then, such concepts of ethics and morals underlie the importance of the right behaviors. In various settings, such as workplaces, humans establish codes of ethics and conduct to guide behavior. Therefore, when writing an ethics paper, a student’s focus is on how humans embrace or disregard good morals in society.

1. Defining Features or Characteristics of an Ethics Paper or Essay

Like all other types of essays , an ethics paper has features that define it as an academic text. To some extent, these features influence an essay structure of a paper. For example, the first feature is proof of the importance of a topic. In this case, students show this importance by constructing essay topics as challenging issues facing society, hence talking about it. Then, the second characteristic is a thesis statement that learners in philosophy formulate to shed light on a topic. Further on, the third feature is arguments that support a thesis, and the fourth characteristic is possible counterarguments. Moreover, the fifth feature is a rebuttal, where writers insist on the strengths of their arguments while acknowledging the counterarguments. In turn, the sixth characteristic is a sum-up of an ethics paper. Here, authors emphasize a thesis statement by justifying the arguments in its favor that they provide in a written document.

2. How Does an Ethics Paper Differ From Other Essays

There are many types of essays that students write under a discipline of philosophy. Basically, each essay type has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other papers. For an ethics essay, these characteristics include addressing an ethical issue, using an ethical lens to make arguments regarding a controversial matter, or explaining an ethical dilemma. Ideally, this type of paper focuses on elaborating on ethics and morality. In contrast, a narrative essay focuses on telling the writer’s story, while an informative essay focuses on educating the audience concerning a topic. Moreover, while some papers, like narrative or college application essays, utilize the first-person language, an ethics essay takes a formal approach to a third-person language.

3. How to Know if Students Need to Write an Ethics Paper or Essay

Generally, before students write some types of papers , they first consider the department or tutor’s requirements. Basically, these requirements can provide direct instructions, including a research topic, an essay outline , or a grading rubric. In this case, the latter helps students to understand the basic expectations of educational departments or tutors. Therefore, when students do not get direct instructions about their ethics topics, they can always know what type of essay they need to write by reading grading essay rubric requirements. For ethics papers, such prompts require students to take a stand on an issue of profound ethical or moral implications, such as fraud. In turn, key elements that tell students that they need to write an ethics paper or essay include providing an ethical argument, elaborating on an ethical dilemma, or expounding on ethical and legal implications.

4. How Do Students Know if They Need to Write an Ethics Paper by Looking at an Essay Topic

Students consider the instructions given by departments or tutors when writing essays. Basically, these instructions provide directions on essay topics that students should address when writing their papers. When writing an ethics paper, students can know that they need to write this type of essay by looking at the department or tutor’s topic. Moreover, this ethics topic may require learners to provide ethical arguments concerning a matter, elaborate on an ethical dilemma, or state whether an issue is ethical or legal. Hence, a central message of a topic should require students to address an issue via an ethical or moral lens.

5. The Meaning of an Ethical Argument, Ethical Dilemma, and Ethical v. Legal Implications

Key elements that define an ethics paper include ethical arguments, ethical dilemmas, and ethical and legal implications. For example, the term “ethical arguments” refers to a concept of taking a stand on an issue with ethical and moral implications and defending it. In this case, writers make ethical arguments to support their perspectives on an issue raising ethical or moral questions, such as fraud. Then, the term “ethical dilemma” refers to a situation that individuals find themselves whenever they face an issue raising ethical or moral questions, such as bribery. Also, authors are torn between two options, with one option having severe ethical or moral implications. In turn, the term “ethical versus legal implications” refers to a situation where a writer has to decide whether an issue, such as bribery, needs ethical or legal redress.

20 Examples of Ethics Topics for Writing Essays and Research Papers

• Soaps and Deodorants as Potential Causes of Breast Cancer.
• The Ethics and Legality of Child Adoption.
• The Pros and Cons of Taking Vitamin Supplements.
• Plastic Surgery and the Pursuit of Beauty.
• Human Cloning: Is it Ethical?
• Death Penalty: Key Pros and Cons.
• Abortion as an Intervention Against Teen Pregnancy.
• Is Voting a Moral or Legal Duty.
• Does Driving an Electric Car Indicate Responsible Citizenship?
• Social Media Use and Privacy.
• Should Schools Enact Anti-Bullying Policies?
• Does Social Media Use Enhance or Undermine Socialization?
• Combating Music Piracy: Should Governments Get Involved?
• Organic Foods versus Processed Foods: Which is Healthier?
• Global Warming and the Extinction of Animal and Plant Species
• Should Politics and Church Separate?
• Is It Justified to Bribe to Avoid a Legal Penalty?
• Should Nurses Be Allowed to Assist Terminally Ill Patients to End Their Lives?
• Corporate Fraud: Who Should Take Responsibility?
• Is Corporate Social Responsibility a Humanitarian or Commercial Concept?

Writing Outline and Structure of an Ethics Paper or Essay

Like any other essay, an ethics paper follows a structure that underscores its outline. Basically, this structure comprises three sections: introduction, body, and conclusion. When writing these sections, students must ensure they address all the essential defining features stated previously in their ethics essays or papers. When doing so, writers should confirm that the introduction and conclusion sections take 10 percent of the total word count of an ethics paper or essay, while the body, which is the main text, should be 80 percent. Hence, an essay outline of an ethics paper should look as below:

I. Introduction

A. Hook sentence. B. Background information on an ethical dilemma. C. Writer’s claim – a thesis statement.

II. Body Paragraphs

A. Argument

• state a position of an argument;
• support this position with evidence;
• explain how this evidence is right toward this argument and evidence;
• conclude why this argument is valid.

B. Counterargument

• provide a counterargument to a position in the first body paragraph;
• include evidence that supports this counterargument, being opposite to an argument in the previous section;
• explain how this counterargument and evidence in this paragraph are correct by using an opposite perspective;
• finish why this counterargument is valid for this case.

C. Rebuttal

• define the weaknesses of a counterargument;
• cover credible evidence that supports such weaknesses;
• write how these weaknesses make a counterargument irrelevant;
• end with a statement that explains why a counterargument is not valid compared to an argument.

III. Conclusion

A. Restate a thesis. B. Sum up on the argument, counterargument, and rebuttal. C. State a final claim.

Explaining Each Section for Writing an Ethics Paper or Essay

When writing the introduction section, authors of an ethics paper should be brief and concise. Here, students should inform the audience about the purpose of writing by accurately expounding on an ethical issue that they intend to address. In essence, this aspect means highlighting their stand concerning an issue. Moreover, formulating a thesis statement helps to accomplish this goal. In this case, writers frame their minds and structure their ethics papers via the use of arguments that defend their stand on an issue of profound ethical or moral implications. Notably, when writing the introduction part, which signals the start of an ethical paper or essay, learners should begin with a hook to grab the readers’ attention. In turn, this sentence can be a popular misconception or a question that writers intend to answer when writing an ethics paper or essay.

II. Body Section

When writing the body of an ethics paper or essay, students should use a thesis statement as a reference point. In other words, they should use a thesis statement to come up with several ideas or arguments in defense of their stand on the ethical or moral issue identified in the introduction part. Basically, rules of academic writing dictate that students should begin each body paragraph with a topic sentence, whose purpose is to introduce a claim or idea that they intend to elaborate on in the section. Then, it is advisable that, when writing the body section, learners should use different paragraphs to separate arguments logically. Also, students should follow a sandwich rule when writing every body paragraph of an ethics paper or essay. In turn, such a paragraph structure means providing a claim, supporting it with evidence, explaining its relevance to the paper’s thesis, and ending with a transition sentence to be connected with the next paragraph logically.

The conclusion part is the last section of an ethics paper. In particular, an ethics essay should capture several themes in this section. Firstly, writers should restate a thesis statement. Secondly, they should summarize the main points made in body paragraphs. Also, this aspect means summarizing the writer’s arguments for their stands towards an issue with ethical or moral implications. In turn, authors should reiterate the paper’s topic and state why it was essential to address an ethical or moral issue. Besides, students need to avoid providing new information in this section.

Example of an Ethics Paper

Topic – Euthanasia: Is It Ethical?

I. Introduction Sample of an Ethics Paper

Terminal illness is a condition of profound pain and suffering for those affected, including the patients and their families. Today, some scientists support euthanasia, the aspect of assisting terminally ill patients in ending their lives. While health professionals should do everything to help their patients to avoid suffering, assisting them in ending their lives is unethical and immoral.

II. Examples of Body Paragraphs in an Ethics Paper

Life is a sacred thing, and no human being has any justification for ending it, regardless of whose it is. For example, the premise of a debate about euthanasia, which refers to assisted suicide, is the prevalence of terminal illnesses that subject individuals to a life of pain, suffering, and dependence. Without any hope of recovery, some individuals have opted to end their lives with the help of their loved ones or health professionals. While there is every reason to empathize with these individuals’ fate, there is no basis for supporting their desire to end their lives. In turn, the sanctity of life does not allow human beings to end life, no matter the circumstances.

If there seems to be no hope of recovery, ending life is counterproductive in an age of significant scientific and technological advancements. Basically, scientists are working round the clock to find cures for incurable diseases that have proven to be a threat to humanity. For example, today, smallpox is no longer a threat because a cure is found (Persson, 2010). Therefore, the fact that there may be no cure for a disease today does not mean that there will not be a cure tomorrow. Naturally, human beings rely on hope to overcome moments of darkness, such as a terminal illness diagnosis. Nonetheless, it is the effort of the scientific community that has always brought hope to humanity. In this light, there is no ethical or moral justification for euthanasia.

Euthanasia is not only a solution to terminal illness but also a sign of hopelessness and despair. When patients take the root of assisted suicide, it means that they give up on looking for alternatives in dealing with a problem. In this case, the fact that a terminal illness does not have a cure does not imply that it cannot be managed. Moreover, individuals who love a terminally ill person, such as family members and friends, hope to spend more time with them before an inevitable time happens. As such, terminally ill patients should use their families and health professionals to live longer. In essence, this aspect reflects true humanity – standing firm and determining amid of insurmountable odds. On that truth alone, euthanasia is an idea that deserves no thought or attention.

III. Conclusion Sample of an Ethics Paper

There is nothing more devastating than a terminal illness diagnosis. Basically, such news punctures the hope of many individuals, families, and communities. Nonetheless, patients should not lose hope and despair to the point of wanting to end their lives because of being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Because life is sacred and there is always a higher probability of medical breakthroughs in an age of scientific and technological advancement, euthanasia is an unethical and immoral solution to a terminal illness.

Persson, S. (2010). Smallpox, syphilis, and salvation: Medical breakthroughs that changed the world . East Gosford, New South Wales: Exisle Publishing.

Summing Up How to Write a Good Ethics Paper or Essay

Essay writing is an essential academic exercise that enables students to develop writing skills. When writing an ethics paper or essay, students focus on taking a stand on an issue with ethical or moral implications. In this case, writers create a thesis statement that expresses their perspective on a moral issue, which can be an ethical dilemma. In the main text, authors provide arguments that defend their thesis statements. Hence, when writing an ethics paper or essay, students should master the following tips:

• develop the introduction-body-conclusion outline;
• introduce a topic briefly and concisely in the introduction section;
• develop a thesis statement;
• Use separate body paragraphs to introduce and defend arguments;
• Ensure to provide a counterargument and a rebuttal;
• Restate a thesis statement in the conclusion section, including a summary of the main points (arguments that defend the paper’s thesis).

To Learn More, Read Relevant Articles

How to cite a podcast in apa 7 with schemes and examples, how to cite a podcast in mla 9 with examples and illustrations.

627 Ethics Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

📃 10 tips for writing essays on ethics, 🏆 best ethics topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on ethics, 🎓 simple & easy ethics essay titles, 📌 writing prompts for ethics, 🥇 most interesting ethics topics to write about, ✍️ ethics essay topics for college, ❓ ethics essay questions.

People make ethical choices every day, even when they do not realize it. Ethics is a debatable topic that covers many aspects of our daily life.

Ethics essays can help students to understand ethical dilemmas and problems better. Although writing an ethics essay can be challenging, we are always here to help!

Start with choosing an issue you want to discuss in the paper. Some good ethics essay topics and examples we can suggest are:

• The aspects of utilitarianism as an ethical theory
• Ethical dilemmas in the field of healthcare
• Theories that explain human behavior
• The significance of the personal code of ethics
• Should euthanasia/abortion/personal use of drugs be legal?
• Is morality related to society or culture?
• Are there moral obligations all individuals should follow?

Remember that you can discuss other ethics essay questions and topics too. Choose one of the titles that seem most relevant to you. Now you are ready to start working on your paper. Here are ten tips that will help you to write an outstanding essay:

• Research the issue you have selected thoroughly. You should gain an excellent understanding of its aspects, causes, and consequences. Try to rely on credible sources (such as peer-reviewed articles) only.
• If you are not sure that the selected problem is relevant, find an ethics essay example online. This step can also help you to analyze your ethics essay structure and see whether you should make some changes.
• Develop a good outline for your essay. Include an introductory section, several body paragraphs (at least three, if possible), and a summary or a conclusion. Note that an argumentative essay should include a refutation section too.
• Introduce your thesis statement clearly. Your reader should understand the main argument of your essay.
• Discuss all significant aspects related to ethics. Provide a definition of this term and examples of ethical dilemmas that may arise. It can make your paper more engaging to your audience.
• Avoid overly complex sentences. Your essay should look professional but be easy-to-read. Remember that in general, sentences should not be longer than 35 words.
• Discuss your perspectives on ethical issues you are presenting. State your opinion and include the recommendations you would provide. If you have relevant experiences or know people who have faced ethical dilemmas, discuss them in your paper.
• Remember that the last paragraph of the essay is important. You need to present your thesis statement once again, along with the main arguments of your work. Discuss the findings of your study and make a conclusion.
• Support your claims with evidence. Include in-text citations whenever you are referring to someone else’s work. At the same time, your paper should not include information from outside sources only. Add comments to each of the facts you are presenting.
• Check the paper several times before sending it to your professor. You need to make sure that there are no grammatical mistakes. Pay attention to the sentence structure too. An important tip would be to put your essay away for several days and revise your ideas later with “fresh” eyes. Do not hesitate to ask your peers for help in revising your essay too.

Remember to check out essay samples on our website. They are free!

• Ethical Issues of Targeting Uninformed Consumers The rationale behind this statement is that uninformed consumers do not have psychological maturity, meaning that target marketing can force them to make unreasonable decisions and purchases.
• McDonald’s Ethical Issues: Examples of Unethical Marketing Practices It is a case study of McDonalds and how the international company disregards the ethical considerations of business in the fast food industry. To this end, the ethical practices include the accurate representation of a […]
• Justice Theory: Business Ethics, Utilitarianism, Rights, Caring, and Virtue The foremost portion of business ethics understands the theory of rights as one of the core principles in the five-item ethical positions that deem essential in the understanding of moral business practices.
• “Wit” by Margaret Edson: Ethical and Legal Issues The decisions included the type of treatments to give her, the frequency of the treatments, and the decision to resuscitate or not to resuscitate.
• Moral and Ethical Issues of Recombinant DNA Technology In my opinion that debate is of the greatest importance and my hope is that these six lectures may have contributed to it.
• Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster and Ethical Issues It manifested in the management’s decision to launch the shuttle despite insufficient testing and the faults in the design of the O-rings.
• BP Oil Company Ethical Dilemma The damages caused by the spill originated from the effects of the oil on the environment and the damaging effects of the cleanup activities.
• Importance of Ethics in Communication Essay The issue that arises is whether employees make the right decision that would benefit the company or they make the wrong choices that call for the downfall of the company.
• Moral and Ethical Issues in Science and Technology The aspects that pose moral and ethical issues in technology today need to be outlined and controlled with consideration of all the parties involved.
• An Ethical Dilemma Faced by Nestle: Case Analysis International staffing and development help Nestle to organize human resources in accordance with the needs of the company and its strategic goals.
• Merck Company and River Blindness Case Study Ethics According to the report, any country that requested for the drug would receive the drugs in coordination with the World Health Organization.
• Importance of Ethics in Business The manager of the North American company has a difficult task because in as much as the decision taken by the company depends on him, he wants to please both parties, that is, the client […]
• Business Ethics and Social Responsibility Essay In this light, this paper discusses the importance of ethics and social responsibility and various practices and theories employed in different organizations. In future, ethics and social responsibility will have a new meaning in the […]
• Does Possession of Knowledge Carry an Ethical Responsibility? Ethical responsibility imposed on the power authorities is ignored and, therefore, people are unaware of the consequences of their reforms and actions.
• Ethical Dilemmas in Criminal Justice If one is to discuss the issue with the senior management of the organization in which the crime occurred, there is a high chance that the issue will not be taken as seriously due to […]
• Ethics in Tourism and Hospitality Industry Report The ability to effectively articulate high levels of ethics in tourism and hospitality industry is a key determinant of the capacity for the aforementioned sector to trace its missions, achieve the set goals, objectives and […]
• Unethical and Ethical Issues in Prisons (Corrections) This is one of the unethical practices that are evident in the prison systems. In this case, prison warders and authorities are usually noted to be actively involved in the business.
• Toyota Ethical Issues and Social Responsibility Another set of the company’s stakeholders that affect the ethical code of business in the company is the external environment like customers and the society; there is a level of quality that customers expect from […]
• Chernobyl Disaster: Ethical Aspects and Effects The cause of the disaster was a faulty design that caused a nuclear reactor to overheat and explode. The constructors of the plant violated the construction technology and there were plenty of design deviations.
• Social Media Ethics Essay: Examples & Definition In the initial stages of social media, it was easy fro companies to brush aside the idea of social media and have nothing to do with it, hence, risk being victims of the two risks.
• Ethical Subjectivism and Emotivism in Society The challenge is that they are unable to account for the use of moral reason as a driver behind an emotive statement.
• Ethics and Morality Relationship Ethics is a term used to refer to the body of doctrines that guide individuals to behave in a way that is ideologically right, fine, and appropriate.
• PepsiCo Ethical Issues & Achievements The firm has established a global code of conduct that generally identifies the main objective of conducting business in the right way as a part of its corporate mechanism aimed at ensuring that customers of […]
• Ethical Issues Surrounding Intellectual Property Rights The owner of the copyright in spite of the absence of necessity to provide the copyright notice on the work is the only person who can determine the ways of possible usage of the work.
• The Link Between Professionalism and Ethics In a sum up professionalism is the equality of being honest and faithful to the profession. Successful engineers are as a result of the moral behaviors and work ethics they endorse in their day to […]
• Anthropocentric and Non-Anthropocentric Environmental Ethics In the current reality, non-anthropocentric environmental ethics are impractical in fields of international development, and poverty reduction as the primary focus is on improvements for the human population.
• Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution | Essay Example Secondly, I was supposed to show other employees that no one is above the policies of this company and if anyone commits a mistake the individual must be punished.
• Virtue Theory, Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics The foundation of utilitarianism theory is in the principle of utility. On the other hand, the theory of deontology embraces the concept of duty.
• Relationship Between Ethics and Religion Essay While a believer will pose that the two function as a couple, a non-believer, on the other hand will hold that morality is independent of religion.
• Ethical Dilemma as Witnessed in the Cassavetes’ Film “My Sister’s Keeper” Organ transplants require the voluntary participation of donors and the society at large in donating the vital organs from living or deceased members of the society.
• Ethical Issues at the Radiology Department Since the radiographer was not concerned with the fact that the patient could not speak English properly, the former broke the principles of radiography ethics by conducting a procedure that could harm the patient in […]
• Business Ethics Is an Oxymoron: Essay Example Business and ethics are incompatible and that is why business ethics is an oxymoron. Business ethics is an oxymoron because business and ethics are incompatible.
• Samsung Company’s Quality Issue and Kantian Ethics Focusing on the distribution of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7, it can be stated that the company wanted to sell its product and to obtain profit, failing to ensure that its phone had already been […]
• Psychological Testing: Ethical and Legal Issues Two of the cases that have had a major impact on the institution of psychological testing are ‘Larry P.v Riles and Crawford v.
• Key Ethical Issues in Retailing and Distribution As Barnett et al.observed empirically, there are several self-evident dimensions to ethical consumerism which players in retail and distribution function should comprehensively be aware of, for these dimensions may act in an organized and collective […]
• My Sister’s Keeper: Ethical and Legal Issues When Sara is informed by Campbell that her daughter had the right to reject the kidney donation surgery, Sara argues that Anna was too young to decide for herself and that she was going to […]
• Ethics of Divorce: Deontology and Utilitarianism Before analyzing the ethics of divorce, the paper first introduces the subject of ethics followed by the theme of divorce in the contemporary societal settings.
• Adelphia Communications Scandal and Ethical Issues This is because of the huge sums of money involved, and the suspicious arrangement the Rigas family made with the company that required the company and the Rigas family to be guarantors of each other.
• Max Weber – The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Max Weber in his book the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism sought to explain the emergence of the modern capitalism and the origin of the modern secular and industrial society.
• Workplace Ethical Issues Essay Harassment of the co-workers or clients is one of the major workplace ethical issues that involve violation of the employers’ workplace ethics policy.
• Laws and ethics Since the law must be obeyed, it becomes enforceable and that is why institutions such as the police and the judiciary have a duty of enforcing the law.
• Ethics by Linda Pasten This discussion looks at the poem’ Ethics’ by Linda Pasten and seeks to try and gain an in-depth understanding of the reason behind Linda Pasten writing of this poem as well as some of the […]
• Family Therapy: Ethical Dilemmas One of the ethical dilemmas in the case is that of deciding whether or not to disclose the information about Breen’s relationship with her boyfriend to her parents.
• Musk and Tesla: A Strong Code of Corporate Ethics? These guidelines consider the ideas, norms, laws, and business regulations that govern how individuals act within the institution and how the firm operates in the community.
• Ethics in Social Research: Peculiarities of the Genie Case and the Milgram Experiment The main idea of the experiment consists in the physical and even moral injury of the object. The consent of the experiment was not informed.
• The Philosophical Approaches to Ethics The main point of the argument is that philosophical approaches to business ethics provide guidelines for making ethical business decisions, but some of these approaches are controversial and have no support from most moral scholars.
• Ethical and Legal Considerations in Quantitative Research The proposed research question is appropriate to be used in the study the aim of which is to find out how the students’ interest in playing computer and video games can predict their achievement at […]
• Death Penalty and Ethics The arguments for the capital punishment as explained earlier are also extremely weak and the practice of death penalty is morally wrong.
• Essay on Media Ethics and Principles of Media Companies The ethics of the media becomes necessary in order to address the above issues. The issue of “media ethics” seeks to promote the best standards in the industry.
• The Mechanical Engineering Ethics Understanding Ethics refers to a set of values and principles that guide the conduct of members of a profession. Shared responsibility is a quality that enables one to work in a manner that promotes cooperation.
• Comparison of Codes of Ethics: The American Counseling Association and the American Psychological Association Both the Psychologist and the counselor abide to the same codes of conduct with regard to terminating their services to a client.
• Ethical Dilemma of Child Abuse In the above example, a nurse has to apply rational judgment to analyze the extent and threats when making decisions in the best interest of the victim of child abuse.
• Ethical Leadership: Martin Luther King All individuals were expected to consider his actions and embrace the idea of morality. Through the use of a positive community culture and empowerment tactics, King managed to model such desirable behaviors.
• The Ethical Issues of the Mattel Toy Scandal The reasons for the considerable recalls of products were that the toys manufactured on the facilities based in China were dangerous for children’s health due to the lead paint discovered in the toys and the […]
• Ethical Issues With the Stanford Prison Experiment – Essay Nowadays, modern psychologists are expected to adhere to a strict and rigid code of ethical principles in order to ensure the validity of their practices and the safety of the patients and participants.
• Legal-Ethical Issues Affecting Patient Rights for the Elderly The kind of relationship that healthcare professionals can have with their elderly clients can have legal and moral implications in relation to patient rights for the elderly.
• Business & Legal Issues: Ford Pinto To be more precise, the Ford Pinto case will be evaluated from the legal point of view to establish which laws were violated in the process of corporate decision-making that led to the production of […]
• Ethical Relativism: Advantages and Disadvantages It is necessary to acknowledge this difference to understand that the world is diverse and unequal. The most significant weakness refers to the fact that it is possible to rely on ethical relativism to justify […]
• Apple Corporation Social and Ethical Responsibility The paper will further discuss the methods Apple can utilize to make sure its standards on wage and benefits are adhered to, determine the impacts of increased prices of goods on customer purchasing behavior, and […]
• What is the Importance of Ethics When it Comes to Governance? This form of governance depends on curtailing the freedom of the ruled in order to maximize the power of the rulers.
• Samsung’s Ethical Dilemma of Child Labor The paper will critically analyze the ethical dimensions of the dilemma from the perspective of the utilitarian ethical theory. It will be argued that according to the fundamental principles of the theory, the company’s behavior […]
• Dealing With Ethical Issues in the Workplace In the second case, the initial perception of the manager as to the applicant’s personality is that of a qualified, mature and sociable person.
• Volkswagen Company’s Emissions Fraud: Ethical Issues The scandal, otherwise known as the VW emissions fraud, occurred when the EPA carried out a series of tests on VW vehicles and discovered that the cars were not in compliance with emission regulations established […]
• Ethical Dilemmas Facing Teachers The proponents of this system claim that it is authentic and offers a first hand experience to the learners. The needs in this system include having a strong foundation in the areas that the knowledge […]
• Ethical and Legal Issues in Nursing Informatics One of the basic underpinnings is the fact that confidentiality violations can result in various issues for the patient whose well-being can be threatened, which is unacceptable for the nurse whose job is to ensure […]
• Corporate Social Responsibility at the Tesco PLC Most of them look at the poor and superior activities that the company is engaged in.the impact of both their produce is scrutinized in terms of the value it brings to the society.
• Code of Ethics in the Hospitality Industry The culture of hotel employees’ behavior includes all the aspects of personal external and internal culture, namely, the rules of behavior and the ability to express oneself correctly and to observe speech etiquette.
• Microsoft Corporation’s Ethical Perspectives A global organization like Microsoft has both ethical and social responsibility issues it has to deal with in the course of its operations. According to Microsoft, employee diversity is a good indication of the company’s […]
• The Ford Pinto Case and Ethical Dilemma Lee Iacocca, the Ford company’s president, was accused of disregarding the need to improve the safety of Pinto cars due to the increased cost.
• Quebec Bridge Collapse and Ethical Issues Since the commission of inquiry did find out that the change of design was one of the factors that led to the collapse of the bridge, many engineers perceive that Theodore Cooper changed the design […]
• Richard Angelo: A Serial Killer and His Ethical Dilemma The convicted claimed he made the injections to cause crises to be able to revive patients and become a hero in front of his colleagues.
• Business Ethics: Is It Profitable? Business ethics is a set of professional ethics that tries to inspect ethical problem or the principles of ethics that can emerge in a business organization. Implementation of ethics in a business organization increases costs […]
• Early Childhood Education Center’s Ethical Dilemma Therefore, it is necessary to involve different people in the discussion of this case because there are several ethical responsibilities applied to a new child, the children of the class, the staff, parents, and the […]
• Ethical Issues, Distractions, and Alarm Fatigue With that in mind, the minimization of unnecessary distractions and the optimization of alerting systems to prevent alert fatigue are essential for safe and patient-centered healthcare.
• Teleological vs. Deontological Ethics They are meta-ethics, deontological ethics, hedonism, normative ethics, teleological ethics, and many others The present paper is aimed at describing teleological and deontological ethics as well as the differences between them.
• Business Ethics of the H&M Company Additionally, all employees should have a written contract in their local language provided to them by H&M, and they should be aware of the terms and conditions.
• Pornography: Breaching Ethical Standards However, before delving into the details surrounding this argument, it is important to understand the ethical issues and breaches of pornography.
• Apple’s Ethical Challenges Regarding Labor Practices Despite the fact that this aspect violates Apple’s principles of ethical supply chains, which prohibit the use of child labor, the company continued to cooperate with the supplier for another three years.
• The Concept of Environmental Ethics Environmental ethics is concerned with the ethical relationship of human beings with the environment. Human beings must relate ethically with all other living organisms.
• Ethical Dilemmas in Counselling and Treatment Methods The case of Brett has become an ethical issue based on the following; questions are revolving around what information can be released to the parents and parents request to review the diagnosis since no procedure […]
• Ethics and Safety in Nursing Informatics It is suggested that, first of all, nurses need to inform patients about the type of the accumulated data that may be disclosed and with whom it can be shared prior the beginning of the […]
• The Ethical Issues in Financial Management A reputation of integrity enables a financial manager to attract other employees to believe in the company’s vision and work towards implementing the company’s objectives.
• Criminal Justice Ethics Definition Criminal justice ethics involves all the codes as well as standards that apply to all the concerned parties in the criminal justice system for example attorneys, prosecutors, and the other entire professionals in the criminal […]
• Jaguar Land Rover Business Strategy and Ethics This study evaluates the internal and external environments using different tools and techniques, including the PEST and four corners models to study the impact of CSR in line with the Jaguar Land Rover business strategy.
• Analysis of the Differences Between Laws and Ethics Ethics tells people what they ought to do and in what ways. In conclusion, law and ethics are similar because they aim to promote order and cohesion in society.
• Kant’s Ethics: Objection to Lying And as lying is a form of communication, and people know this fact, the only way out in order not to be defrauded is stop communicating.
• Google and Ethics The purpose is to show that a company like Google must behave ethically and all the decisions made by managers and other superiors should be guided by the highest morale and respect to the surrounding […]
• Ethics and Civics of the Patriots in the 18th Century The statement mentioned in the Declaration of Independence about the necessity for people to dissolve their political bands and be equal within the frames of the Laws of Nature proved the grievance of the patriots.
• Starbucks’ Ethical Accusations Diversity in the contemporary business world is one of the key factors that contribute to the success of many industry participants.
• Ethical Issues in Interior Design Lastly, is the issue of honesty and an interior designer should always be honest as this principle forms the core of customer relations in any business.
• Ethical Issues in the “Unthinkable” Film However, the crescendo of the interrogation is reached when the nuclear explosions are about to occur, and the interrogator threatens the victim’s family in a bid to stop the explosion by locating the bombs; the […]
• Ethical Theories and Nepotism Relationships Relating to the ethical theory of ethics of justice to nepotism, it should be mentioned that justice is considered to be fair on the basis of various human considerations.
• Wal-Mart’s Ethical Issues This paper forms an analysis of the ethical issues raised against or for Wal-Mart Corporation and the potential outcomes of some of the negative or conflicting views about the firm.
• Dante’s Ethical System in His Divine Comedy Dante uses the perception of God on sin to depict his personal perception of punishment and the structures he envisions hell to have.
• Tesco Company Business Ethics: Deontology and Teleology However, it is the policy of the company to consider the effect that the product will have on the people or customers rather than considering the financial gain that the company will derive from such […]
• Application of ethical theory This means that there are four stakeholders; James; the owner of the company, the employees, the council and the residents of the council.
• Ethical Dilemma: Counselors Engaging in Relations with Clients They should keep a boundary in the way they relate to the clients to ensure that their relationship with the client does no harm or pose potential harm to the clients.
• Zodiac Movie: Crime, Media Reporting and Ethics The development of the events and the rise of the killer’s popularity began as soon as the reporters of the San Francisco Chronicle received and discovered the letter with threats to American society.
• Lockheed Corporation’s Ethical Decision-Making During the same period, Lockheed recorded numerous losses due to the changes experienced in the market. The leaders in the firm also continued to pay bribes to different government officials.
• Pros, Cons and Ethics of “Stop and Frisk” Law Although one of the mandates of the NYPD includes preventing crime from occurring by deploying legal means, this paper questions the legal and ethical foundation of the ‘stop and frisk’ law applied by the NYPD. […]
• Nestlé’s Ethical Issues in Developing Countries In this case, the ethical elements of the operations pose questions about the motives of such corporations, which results in displeasure to the greatest majority.
• Ethics in the Business Research It is, therefore, extremely essential for the researcher to assess the weight of every research issue in order to determine how best to approach the whole research process without causing harm to any one.
• Abortion and Virtue Ethics Those who support the right of a woman to an abortion even after the final trimester makes the assertion that the Constitution does not provide any legal rights for a child that is still within […]
• Ethics and Human Resource Management The staff at the human resource department should always show the importance of ethics in the organization. Therefore, the HRM should know that reward and appraisal systems can be harnessed to promote ethical behavior in […]
• Coke and Pepsi in India: Issues, Ethics, and Management Stakeholder Management: Key stakeholders for the companies are the customers, the respective governments, the opinion builders, the equity holders, the media, NGOs, the strategic partners, the employees and of course the environment.
• NSPE Code of Ethics vs. Other Engineering Codes Essay Similarities between NSPE code of ethics and AiChE Engineers should use their skills to ensure health, welfare and safety of the public as provided by the first principle. The goal is to enhance health and […]
• The Volkswagen Scandal: Ethical & Unethical Choices Indeed, seeing that Volkswagen has jeopardized both the safety and the health of the global community by allowing the production and purchase of air-polluting cars, it is expected that the levels of trust between the […]
• Pornography and Ethics This paper is going to assess the extent to what extent is the definition of pornography qualified to be used, and if pornography is ethical in modern society.
• Act Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics: Pros and Cons Therefore, act utilitarianism is better than virtue ethics since it is clear, concise, and focuses on the majority. Virtue ethics’ strengths can be utilized to enhance the act-utilitarianism theory.
• Wall Street (1987): Ethics Analysis As anticipated, Gekko takes Bud in and offers him a big opportunity to make good money; however, Bud has to play the game according to rules.
• Nestlé Ethics and Social Responsibility The research in the sphere of Nestle’s ethics shows that the company has lots of low-rated ethical criteria to be accused of.
• Nursing Code of Ethics The nurses in all the aforementioned positions and context, performs with respect and compassion for the innate distinctness, worth, and dignity of each person, without any regard for his or her social or financial status, […]
• Ethical Analysis of the Movie “Liar, Liar” The story described in the movie is one of egoism and a self centered person who will resort to anything just to win the case.
• Engineering Ethics of Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island Despite the significant efforts of the responders to the Chernobyl accident, its consequences included the creation of the exclusion zone, people’s deaths, and worsening of the population’s health.
• Ethical Issue: Whistleblowing The aim of reporting is to ensure that the good of the public and other stakeholders is considered in future engagements.
• Ethical Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew Chapters 5-7 The Sermon on the Mount refers to a portion of the Bible that contains some of the things that Jesus said and the lessons that He taught to his disciples.
• Public Administration Ethical Dilemma and Theories Smith should take the responsibility of ensuring that the needs of the majority are upheld since the welfare of the community, and the organization is of importance.
• Ethics in Group Counseling According to Crespi, it is important for the counselor and learners to learn the legal principles that guide the process of counseling by governing the standards to be observed by the counselor and the client.
• Immanuel Kant Ethics Kant argues that, “a person is good or bad depending on the motivation of their actions and not on the goodness of the consequences of those actions”.
• Eastern Ethics and Natural Law On the other hand, the Aristotelian system relies on the process of phronesis that manifests harmony and happiness through the practice of self-restraint and temperance.
• Enron Management Practices’ Ethical Principles According to Hendrikse & Hendrikse, code of ethics refers to “the business constitution that governs relationships and behaviour among the company, its directors, management and employees, and the inter-relationship among the company, shareholders, and business […]
• Ethical Issues Associated With Psychological Testing The second case along the line of psychological testing includes the case of Brown V. Reason The above case was used to examine the validity of psychological testing.
• Ethics Types, Differences, Applications To be more particular about the two types above of ethics, virtue ethics can be defined as the type of ethics that “focuses on the character traits and nonobligatory ideas that facilitate the development of […]
• H. B. Fuller and His Resistol Products Ethical Case Fuller is not responsible for the overall addiction of street children to glue sniffing, but the company is responsible for neglecting its own contribution to the dissemination of substance abuse.H.B.
• The Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering Many people have questioned the health risks that arise from genetically modified crops, thus it is the politicians who have to ensure that the interests of the people are met and their safety is assured. […]
• Food Ethics Pojman notes that the government has enough resources and manpower to monitor operations of various food processors and determine the health conditions of the food they present to the public.
• Zoom Technology and Its Ethical Issues According to Zoom operators, the organization promised end-to-end encoding, but the commission alleges the end-to-end encryption provided was being stored on its server.
• Kant’s Ethical Theory of Deontology in Nursing Kant advanced two approaches of categorical imperative; first, the maxim of an individual’s action should be universal; and second, a person should treat another with dignity, not as means to reach personal objectives. Also, section […]
• Surrogacy and Its Ethical Implications on Nursing In simpler terms, it is the carrying of a pregnancy by a woman who is not the biological mother of the child.
• Role of Ethics in Advertising When proper ethics are applied in advertising, there is a certainty that public morality and the progress socially will not be gravely endangered in any way through the misuse of the media services.
• Ethical Dilemma in Nursing: Case Study Today, being a nurse is associated with a number of complexities due to the need to comply with diverse obligations in social, political, and healthcare segments.
• Ethical Issues in the Novel “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley The paper looks at the ethical issues that the author highlights in her paper, such as the promotion of artificial life to help in the development of the discussions of this paper. Victor Frankenstein is […]
• Conservation and Preservation Ethics Therefore, man is a manager of the environment in conservation while the environment itself is its manager in preservation ethics. The challenge with preservation and conservation ethics is that these points of view tend to […]
• Role and Importance of Personal Ethics in Psychology The role of personal ethics in psychology in relation to the American psychological association is intended to guide psychologists and standard professionals to guide them in their decision making and conduct at work.
• Ethics and Artificial Intelligence The various AI systems utilize patients’ data without their consent and expose their private information. Many AI systems in the healthcare environment utilize patients’ data and information without their full consent.
• Indian Metals Corporation’s Operations Ethics Therefore, changes could follow the list of a long list of priorities according to the staff and population safety and other requirements.
• The Concept of Ethics in Groups Understanding group dynamics plays a crucial role in increasing the level of success in a group. Second, group members should conduct themselves in a manner that promotes the values and interests of their group.
• Consequentialist, Deontological, and Virtue Ethics: Ethical Theories Ethical principles are rooted in the ethical theories, and ethicists, when trying to explain a particular action, usually refer to the principles, rather than theories.
• Ethics of Politics of Social Research This is followed by describing the political aspects focusing on the possible deviations in the procedure of the research due to the influence of personal and political beliefs of the researcher.
• Ford Motor Company Ethical Strategies and Policies The leaders of Ford Motor Company pay much attention to respecting the needs and interests of employees and customers and to preventing the ethical problems.
• Ethics of Digital Manipulation Secondly, the print media went on to use digital technologies to manipulate and alter actual images in order to display fashion, lifestyles and other desired outcomes with the aim of using them for advertisement.
• Ethical Theories and Ethical Business Practices Among the most common theories of ethics that corporate governance has examined are the utilitarianism theory, the virtue theory, the theory of the common good, the justice theory, and the Kantian theory of ethics.
• Factors Influencing Individuals’ Ethical Behaviour According to the researches, personal, situational, organisational, and external factors influence an individual’s ethical behaviour. In general, individual’s behaviour in an organisation is determined by both individual and situational factors.
• Egoism and Altruism as Ethical Theories While ethical egoism holds that individuals act in a way aimed at pursuing and fulfilling their own interests, altruism emphasizes on the need for others to act in the interest of other people as well […]
• Ethics and Professional Behavior in Criminal Justice One of the most important components of the criminal justice system is a code of ethics, which governs the behavior and conduct of professionals working within the system.
• McDonald’s Ethical and Moral Dilemma Despite his dwelling on the concept of bureaucratic power, Weber says that power is the most important aspect of leadership and the followers should be the only people who grant it to the leaders.
• Ethical Manager It therefore falls on company regulations and carefully formulated codes of ethics to ensure that the ethical manager can be able to restore proper business conduct in the organization.
• Business Ethics and Child Labour According to the case, business ethics is the observance of rules and regulations that have been put in place. Child labour is one of the serious ethical issues that businesses have to deal with in […]
• Resolving Ethical Issues in the Workplace: Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics The ethical issue in question is in regard to whether Alice should report the huge error she has discovered in Mark’s nutritional reporting to the company’s upper management.
• Business Ethics: Reflective Essay Various decision-making procedures right from the time of recruitment of employees, defining the goals and objectives of the organization, designing the appropriate organizational structure, developing the organizational strategies, and integration of the strategies in the […]
• ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors Second, school counselors should ensure and conform to the standards of confidentiality, including appropriate disclosure of information. The fifth aspect is counselors’ mandate to ensure they do not have relationships that are likely to compromise […]
• Ethics and corporate governance Likewise, corporate governance is the process in which corporate boards administer the operation of an organization by its managers, and the way the board members are held answerable to the organization and shareholders.
• Ethical Issues With Performance Enhancing Drugs in Professional Sports The spirit of sports emphasizes on the biological potential, fairness, and justice to the competitors; nevertheless, the use of performance enhancing-drugs undermines the same.
• Ethical and Social responsibility issues in IHRM Despite the fact that different scholars hold different opinions about ethics and corporate social responsibility, there is need for a multinational firm to include the two in its operations so as to create a good […]
• The Wells Fargo Firm’s Ethical Case Analysis The scandal referred to unauthorized sales of bank products in the United States, where the bank employees opened accounts for their clients without the consent of the latter.
• Violation of Basic Ethical Principles in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study This principle was also violated during the Tuskegee Study as the subjects were not treated as autonomous agents capable of and entitled to make their own decisions concerning their treatment and participation in the study.
• “Virtue Ethics and Adultery” by Raja Halwani In my opinion, that in the context of marriage and adultery, there is a connection between love and sex. According to Halwani, adultery is permissible in situations where the partner does not demonstrate fidelity, including […]
• The Connections between the MEAA Code of Ethics and Three Philosophical Traditions The main concepts of the social contract theory, the utilitarian theory and the virtue theory can be used or explaining the main principles of the journalist professional code and providing a deeper insight into its […]
• Ethics in Advertising and Its Importance Therefore, the following essay describes why ethics in advertising is an issue that requires increased attention, the types of advertising, and the benefits of advertising.
• Fifteen Ethical Principles of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics Hence, giving sufficient data and teaching the patient about actual factors, and getting educated consent before exposing a patient to any medical procedure is fundamental.
• The Role of Ethics in “Gone Baby Gone”
• Ethical Issues in Apple Inc.
• Morality and Ethics: Religion Effect on Human Behavior
• Groundhog Day: Ethical Analysis of the Movie
• Public Administration: The Ethical Challenges
• Ethics of Decision-Making in Social Work
• Walmart Company’s Global Ethics and Compliance Challenges
• Ethical Dilemmas in Social Workers’ Practice
• British Airways Ethical System
• Ethics and Abortion
• Nike Business Code of Ethics
• Ethics of Nepotism in Business
• Ethics as a Theme in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
• Ethics of Data Misuse in Urban Planning
• McDonald’s Ethics in Super-Size Me Documentary
• ANA Code of Ethics and Care Management and Coordination in Nursing
• Wealth Inequality: Ethical or Unethical?
• XYZ Company Business Ethics Management
• Personal Values and Beliefs in Ethical Issues
• The Unilever Global Company’s Business Ethics
• What is an ethical choice?
• The Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethical Behavior of Qantas Airways
• Using Food Preservatives Ethical
• Business Ethics in John Q. and Wall Street Movies
• Sex Shop Opening in Germany: Legal and Ethical Issues
• Ethical Issues in GlaxoSmithKline
• Ethical Considerations in Decision-Making
• Facing Ethical Issues as a Software Engineer
• Ethics of Cloning
• Ethical Issues in Terri Schiavo Case
• Nestle Company’s Child Labor and Business Ethics
• An Ethical Analysis of Animal Rights
• Benefits and Dangers of Ethical Hacking
• Ethical and Legal Implications in Healthcare: Case Study
• The Ethical Issues Associated With Organ Transplantation
• Ethics in Cyber Age
• “The Devil Wears Prada”: Morality and Ethics
• Ethics in “The Clockwork Orange” Film by Kubrick
• Ethics in the Film “A Time to Kill”
• The Ethics of Critique
• Ethical Issues of the Boston Tunnel Event
• Economy and Ethics in the Inside a Job Documentary
• Ethical issues in the Digital Age
• Legal and Ethical Issues in International Business
• Christian Ethics Issues and Abortion
• Business Ethics Differences Around the World
• Ethical and Social Implications of Testing
• Indigenous Australians and Engineering Ethics
• Business Ethics: Triple Bottom Line
• Ethical Dilemma of Patient Care Delivery
• Corey’s Ethical Decision-Making Model Application
• Ethical Research in the Erin Brockovich Film
• Reflection of Ethical Self-Assessment
• The Four Steps Leading to Ethical Behavior
• Ethical Dilemma and Environmental Surveillance
• Legal and Ethical Implications for Classroom Management
• Immanuel Kant’s – Duty Theory of Ethics
• Value and Ethics in Organizations
• Law Ethics: Something Rotten in Hondo
• H&M Company Ethical Culture Analysis
• Ethical Decision Making for Hotel and Restaurant Managers
• Key Issues Concerning Computer Security, Ethics, and Privacy
• Ethics in Computer Technology: Cybercrimes
• Ethical Dilemma in Healthcare Administration
• Legal and Ethical Issues in Sports
• Ethics: Should Batman Kill the Joker?
• Ethic Issues: The Rampart Scandal
• Ethical Implications of Implementing Religion or Spirituality Into Therapy
• Kobe Bryant and His Work Ethic
• Ethical Dilemma in “The Reader” Film by S. Daldry
• Ethical Decision Making: Restorative Justice
• Kitsch – under the Title of Taste and Ethics
• Ethical Theories in “The Social Dilemma” Film
• Ethics Setting the Condom Vending Machines in the High-School Area
• Ethical Issues in Mass Communication and Advertising
• Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience: Ethical Issues
• Ethics in Entertainment Journalism
• Business Ethics Theories From a Practical Perspective
• Ethics in Financial Management
• Ethical and Illegal Computer Hacking
• Ethics of Discovery in Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”
• Ethical Codes and Their Importance
• Professional and Ethical Obligation of Architecture
• Clinical Laboratories’ Legal and Ethical Issues
• Volkswagen Group’s Corporate Governance and Ethics
• Hyundai Dispatch Workers and Ethical Dilemma
• Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and Ethical Principles
• Consumer Ethics and Social Responsibility
• Ethical Issues in Organizational Behavior
• How Business Ethics Reflected In Milk Powder Production
• Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility
• The American College of Healthcare Executives Code of Ethics
• Code of Ethics in Education
• Gratuities for Police and Professional Ethics
• Ethics of Airlines’ Extra Charge for Obese People
• Organizational Culture and Business Ethics
• The Ethical Dilemma: Siemens
• Ethical Principles in the Movie The Firm
• Ethical and Unethical Leadership in Healthcare
• Ethics of Group vs. Individual Practice Compared
• Ethical Hedonism: The Principles of Morals and Legislation
• Ethics in Product Safety of Takata Corporation
• Bayview University’s College: Ethical Behavior of Business Students
• Integrity in Organizational Culture and Ethical Theories
• Seven-Step Process for Ethical Decision-Making
• Wells Fargo Banking Scandal: Ethical Analysis
• Ethical Issues of the Juvenile Justice Policy Reform
• Bhopal Gas Incident of 1984: Ethical Issues
• Ethics and Decision-Making in Public Safety
• Puma Company’s Business Conduct and Ethics
• Ethical Issues in Supply Chain
• Ethical Industrial Engineering Ethics
• Can Advertising to Children be Ethical?
• Ethical Leader Characteristics
• Business Ethics Strengths and Weaknesses
• The Coca-Cola Company Struggles With Ethical Crisis
• Christian Perspective and Postmodern Relativism: The Nature of Spirituality and Ethics
• Ethics in Mass Media Regarding Pepsi’s Commercial
• Real, Intellectual, Personal Property, and Business Ethics
• Business Ethics Theories and Values
• Ethical Failures in Research
• The Unocal Firm’s Ethical Dilemma in Burma
• Medical Ethics in Radiography
• Ethical Implications of the Use of Bitcoin
• Purdue Pharma’s Marketing and Ethical Implications
• Ethical Dilemmas of the Movie “The Reader”
• Leadership, Trustworthiness, and Ethical Stewardship
• Ethical Behavior. Ethical Misconduct
• “Ethical Consumerism Is Not Dead” by Julie Irwin
• Mill’s vs. Kant’s Ethical Theories on Lie
• Homelessness Studies and Their Ethical Dimensions
• Differential Aptitude Test and Ethical Principles
• The ICN Code and ANA Code of Nursing Ethics
• Confucian Ethics
• Contemporary Ethical Issues in Wal-Mart
• Enron’s (USA) and Parmalat’s (Italy) ‘Scandals’ of 2003/2004: Ethical Issues and Criticisms
• Ethical Controversies Surrounding John Watson and Little Albert
• Ethical Behaviour in Workplace
• Code of Ethics: Shell Oil
• DoubleClick Inc. Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Issues
• Ethical Situations in the “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Breathless”
• Business Objectives, Ethics and Reputation
• Knowledge Carries an Ethical Responsibility
• Professional Values and Ethics
• Impact of the Internet on Information Systems Ethics
• The Blue Nile Company’s Ethical Issue
• Can a Business Be Successful Without Being Ethical?
• Ethical Dilemmas Within Organisations During the COVID-19
• “Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice” by Pollock
• Technology and Ethics in Business
• Ethics in Real Estate
• Social and Ethical Responsibility: Martin Shkreli Scandal
• Technology Use among Children: Ethical Issues
• Twitter Company’s Code of Business Ethics
• Starbuck’s Ethical Relationship with Stakeholders
• No Child Left behind Ethical Issue
• Analysis: “The Responsible Administrator: an Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role” by Terry Cooper
• Ethical Issues on HIV/AIDS
• Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Ethical Marketing
• Business Ethics in Multinational Corporations
• Decision Making Challenges Facing Ethical Dilemma
• Ethical Responsibilities in Social Work
• Confidential Data Access: Kantian and Virtue Ethics
• The Ethical Decision-Making (EDM) Model Principles
• The Ethical Issues in the Sports Medicine
• Ethics in Nursing Profession and Its Importance
• Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of Physical Therapists
• Perioperative Practitioners: Ethical, Professional, and Legal Issues
• Patients’ Spiritual Needs and Ethical Principles
• Ethical Issues: Occidental Engineering Company
• Ethical Issues in Management Researches
• Jehovah’s Witness Refusal of Care: Ethical Issues
• Accounting & Auditing: Unethical Practice in a Client’s Books
• Kazuo Ishiguro’s “Never Let Me Go” and Major Ethical Dilemmas Raised
• International Satellite Images Ethical Dilemma
• Culture and Ethical Beliefs: International Marketing Strategy
• Pregnancy Case Ethical Solution
• An Ethical System of Deontology: Erin Brockovich (2000)
• Ethical Concept in “Blood Diamonds” Film by Edward Zwick
• Business Ethics in Totalitarian Countries
• Medical Ethics – The Four Pillars Explained
• Business Law and Ethics: Principles of Law
• Ethical Reasoning: Dominant and Alternative Approaches
• Ethical Status of State-Sponsored Lotteries
• Information System Fundamentals and ACS Code of Ethics
• Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Work Situations
• Ethical Responsibility: MS Excel and SPSS
• Solving Ethical Dilemmas in Public Relations
• The Ethics of the Union Carbide Disaster in India
• The Investigation of Ethical Issues in The Tell-Tale Heart and The Pond
• Smartphone-Related Cognitive and Ethical Issues
• Domestic Violence Ethical Dilemmas in Criminal Justice
• Three Ethical Lenses on Human Trafficking
• Medical Ethics of Westwood Imaging Centers
• Ethical Failure in the Pulpit: Impact on the Church, Congregation, and Community
• The American Counseling Association: Code of Ethics
• Ethics and the Internet
• Journalism: Media Law and Ethics
• Ethics and Educational Requirement
• Ethical Principles for Decision Making
• Deontological Ethics and Morality
• Ethical Codes Across Asian and American Cultures
• Plastic Surgery In Pets. Case Studies in Ethical Choice
• Business Ethics, “Performance Appraisal” Case
• Ethical Dilemma in Journalism
• Freeman and Sass About the Basics of the Business Ethics
• Ethical Argument for Surrogate Motherhood
• Business in Angola: Law Regulations and Ethics
• The Golden Principle of Ethics and Its Arguments
• Code of Ethics Concept: Toyota Motor
• Business Ethics, Globalization and Sustainability
• Aging Ethical Issues and Cultural Differences
• Brenda Franklin: Business Ethics Case
• Ethics in Public Administration
• Ethical Issues of Advanced Practice Nurses
• Ethical, Legal and Multicultural Challenges in a Crisis
• Equality and Diversity in Business Ethics
• Home Care and Nurse’s Ethical and Legal Concerns
• Ethics of Online Education
• Cardillo Travel Systems Inc.’s Ethical Practice
• Costco Company’s Business Diversity, Ethics, Leadership
• Ethical Relativism and Absolutism (Kantianism)
• Red Cross as a Global Organization: Ethical Issues
• Journalism Ethical Dilemma: Moral Discourse
• Ethical Decision Making Models in Guerrilla Government
• What Constitutes an Ethical Response?
• Ethical Issues Faced By Multi-National Companies Operating In Less Developed Countries
• A Case for Global Ethics
• Ethics and Faith in the Movie “Crimes and Misdemeanors”
• Cultural Clash in the Board Room: An Ethical Dilemma Among Top Management in Almond China
• Summary of the article Three Kinds of Ethics for Three Kinds of Engineering
• Ethical Behavior in Marketing
• Social responsibility and ethical analysis of Darden
• Psychological Egoism vs Ethical Egoism
• Ethical Decision Making and Sustainable Development
• Towards Understanding Baudrillard’s Seduction Ethics and how It Assists to Understand Modern Media
• Introduction on Professional Values and Ethics
• Ethical Issues Facing Social Researchers
• Drug Abuse as an Ethical Issue
• Ethical Dilemma- The Fate of Opel
• Animal Cruelty as an Ethical and Moral Problem
• Ethical Issues in the Workplace: Gilbane Gold
• Business Ethics in South African Enterprises
• New Belgium Brewing: Ethical and Environmental Responsibility
• Ethical Issues in Road Construction
• AICPA: The Ethics in the Organization
• KPMG Corporation’s Auditing & Ethical Issues
• Ethical Standards in Social Work
• Ergonomics in Job and Workplace Design
• Factors and Influences of Integrity and Ethical Behavior by Employees
• Approaches to the Environmental Ethics
• Digital Communication Laws and Ethics
• Ethical Implications of the Snowden Leaks
• Walmart Manages Ethics and Compliance Challenges
• Bioethical Issue and Ethical Theory in “Gattaca”
• Case Study of Business Ethics in Organization
• “Gone Baby Gone” by Ben Affleck: Film’s Ethical Framework
• Apple Inc.’s Business Ethics Strategies
• Sustainability and Associated Ethical Issues
• Nonmaleficence as Ethical Principle in Healthcare
• Mississippi Code of Ethics in Connection to Athletics
• Theories of Ethics: Virtue, Teleological and Deontological Theory
• Ethical Dilemmas: An Analysis of Two Cases
• First American Financial Corporation: Ethics and Information Technology
• Ethical Dilemmas Surrounding Self-Driving Cars
• Ethics Unwrapped: Apple Suppliers & Labor Practices
• Scientists’ Moral Responsibility and Ethics
• Ethics and Morality in Health Profession
• Ethical Issues of Lotteries: Social Explanations of Lottery Play
• The APA Code of Ethics
• Media Law and Ethics: Integrity in Media Broadcasting
• The Aims of Philosophy of Law: Ethical Issues
• Ethical Dilemmas in Workplace Analysis
• Abortion: An Ethical Dilemma and Legal Position
• Conflicts Between Ethics and the Law in Healthcare
• Virtue Ethics: Kantianism and Utilitarianism
• Ethical Dilemma With the Bank Teller
• Living Wage Issue in Utilitarian Ethics
• War Ethics in “The Sirens of Baghdad” by Yasmina Khadra
• Professionalism and Ethics in Public Administration
• Ethical and Social Responsibility Toward Environment
• Selling Pets and Pets’ Products: The Ethical Considerations Raised.
• Fatlubsy Ventures Inc.’s Ethical Management
• Ethical Obligations of System Administrators
• Starbucks: Ethics and Compliance
• Governance, Ethics and Law
• Transplant Tourism Ethical Issues
• Ethics in Criminal Justice
• Prejudices in “Ethics” by Spinoza
• Faith Integration: Dora’s Ethical and Legal Decision
• Ethical Conduct in Information Technology Profession
• Ethical Dilemmas in the “21” Movie
• Nursing Ethical Principles Application
• Ethical Issues of Death and Dying
• The Ethics of Using Old Examination to Study
• Engineering Ethics and Conflict of Interests
• Tesla and Toyota Companies’ Decision Ethics
• Ethical Behavior as to Returned Food and Beverages
• Academic Dishonesty in Psychologist’s Ethics
• HR Management: Ethical and Diversity Issues
• Work Ethics in a Capitalist American Society
• Ethics of Emergencies: Ayn Rand’s View
• The Barangaroo South Development Project Ethical Case
• Aristotle’s Ethics Conception and Workplace Relations
• General Motors Company Ethical Issues
• Ethical Reflection of Psychological Experiments
• Research Ethic Principles
• Influence of the Formal Cultural System on Ethics
• Ethical Issues in “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad
• Drug-Testing: Utilitarian Theory Ethical Dilemma
• Ethical Issues in Staffing Measurement
• Maximizing Profits: Ethical and Legal Considerations in Management
• Ethics of Bottled Water
• Business Ethics in the Employee Management
• FedEx: Implementing Business Ethics
• Workplace Health & Safety: The Ethical Dilemmas
• Ethical Standards in Scientific Research
• Conceptual Study on Ethics and Morals
• Ethics and Sustainability Reporting
• Mental Health Nursing Practice and Ethical Issues
• Relation Between Neuroscience and Ethics
• Biblical and Human Views on Ethical Standards
• History of Ethical Principles in Psychology
• Ethical Dilemma Analysis: Easyriders v. Hannigan
• Ethical Systems in the “Sophie’s Choice” Movie
• Aristotle’s Ethical Theory and Nursing
• Applying Ethical Frameworks in Practice
• Nursing Ethic: Personal, Cultural and Spiritual Values
• King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud’s Responsible Leadership and Ethics
• Toyota Motor Corporation: Ethical Issue
• Ethics in Education and the Educational Process
• Christian Ethics in Jane Austen’s “Mansfield Park”
• Joe Smith and Bill Bateman: Ethical Dilemma Analysis
• Ethical Issue: Accessibility and Affordability of Healthcare
• Ethical Implications Related to Medication Error
• Strategic and Ethical Leadership Styles Comparison
• Engineering Ethics and Legal Standards
• Counseling Ethics in 5-Step Decision-Making Model
• Ethics and Gender: Empowering Societies
• Effective Ethics Program Developing Concepts
• “Ethics for the Real World” by Ronald Howard and Clinton Korver
• Cultural Differences and Ethics of International Trading
• The Problem of Codes of Ethics
• High Ethical Standards in Business
• An Ethics Program for a Small Business Venture
• Facebook Ethics Aspects
• Ethics in Public Administration: Case 2 – Paul’s Scenario
• Ethics and Practical Advantage to Believe in God
• The National Contract Management Association’s Code of Ethics
• Human Service Professionals: The Ethical Standards
• Reflection on Professional Ethics of Counselors
• Ethical Issues of Prescription Drug Advertising
• An Ethical Dilemma and Lapse in Business
• Utilitarianism: Ethical Theory in Healthcare
• Business Ethics: The Pesticide DDT Case
• Practitioner’s Guide to Ethical Decision-Making
• Moral, Ethical, and Social Issues
• Kant’s Duty-Based Ethics at the Workplace
• Patient Safety Policy, Stakeholders, and Ethics
• “The Ethics of Belief” by Clifford and “The Will to Believe” by James
• Ethical Mishap: The Case of Boeing
• Cannon 6 of the ASCE Code of Ethics
• Kantian Ethics Definition and Description
• Normative Ethics: Utilitarianism and Deontology
• The Significant Facts and Ethical Issues Surrounding Coca-Cola India
• Leah Curtin’s Classic Model in Nursing Ethics
• Clinical Ethical Decision Making: The Four Topics Approach
• Abortion: Ethical Dilemma in Pope John Paul II’s View
• Managing Business Ethics: Alcohol and Marketing
• Assessment Ethics: Classroom Observation Protocols
• Social Work and Codes of Ethics
• Ethical Dilemma Concepts on Example Phoebe’s Case
• Ethical Dilemma of Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
• Kant’s Ethical Theory: Rational and Free Choices
• Stakeholders vs. Shareholders: Ethics in the Workplace
• Ethics in the Modern World
• The Future of Healthcare Ethics
• Post-Dated Cheque Ethical Dilemma in Accounting
• Ethical Practices in Business Organizations
• Ethical Decision-Making: A Real-Life Situation
• Moral Issues and Ethical Subjectivism
• Business Ethics and Law Relationships in Examples
• Ethics in Digital Marketing: Course Reflection
• Media Ethics in the United Arab Emirates
• Patient’s Secret Revelation: Ethical Dilemma
• Faith vs. Ethics in Skloot’s “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”
• Alcohol Industry and Business Ethics
• Valeant Pharmaceuticals: Ethical Evaluation
• Yahoo Company’s Ethical Issues in China
• Ethical Dilemmas in Healthcare Institutions
• Chipotle Restaurant: Ethical and Responsive Business
• Scientology Ethical Concerns
• Caterpillar Company’s Ethical Problems
• Code of Ethics: Apex Inc.
• Counselor ethical boundaries and practices assignment
• Utilitarian, Libertarian, Deontological, and Virtue Ethics Perspectives
• Activity-Based Product Costing and Ethical Behavior
• Violation of Standard 3 of the APA’s Code of Ethics
• Ethical and Social Responsibility of the Alcohol Industry in the UK?
• Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Hacking
• Ethical Dilemma in Medical Practice
• Ethics and Computer Security
• Debates about the Ethical Basis of Human Resource Management
• Sony-Ericsson’s Marketing Ethics
• The Ethics Problem in Business
• The views of ethical behavior to the decision making processes of the Tom’s of Maine Company
• “Eat Drink Man Woman”: Confucian Ethics and Traditional Chinese Family Life
• The Significance of Ethic – Views of Kant, Mill and Nietzsche
• The Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines
• Luxury Fashion Market and Ethics
• Teleological and Deontological Theories of Ethics Definition
• Congressional Ethics and Third-Party Candidates
• Media Ethics: Fake Online News
• Ethics and Code of the Conduct
• Engineering Ethics as to Aboriginal Australians
• Corporate Responsibility at Walmart
• Data Ethics in Business
• Ethical Behavior in Criminal Justice
• Catholic vs. Principle-Based Ethics
• Abortion-Related Ethical Considerations
• Ethics and Evidence-Based Research
• Ethical Dilemma in Law Enforcement: Confidentiality and Misuse of Information
• Ethics and Validity in the Research Process
• The Atlanta Police Department’s Code of Ethics
• Abortion in Australia: Legal and Ethical Issues
• Culture, Ethics, and Law: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
• The Ethical Use of Technology in Healthcare
• Moral Dilemmas in Business Ethics
• Ethical Dilemma of Stopping City Authority
• Virtue and Stoic Ethics in Criminal Justice
• Ethical Issue: Toxic Workplace Culture
• Urban Planning Code of Ethics
• Ethics and Morals: Ambiguous Decisions on Imposing a Penalty
• Ethical Issues with Fetal Anomalies
• The Worth of Biomedical Ethics in Nursing Practice
• Police Culture: Criminal Justice Ethics
• Are Our Business and Ethics Compatible?
• Are Confucianism and Islamic Ethics Applicable in the Contemporary World?
• Are Some Bribes More Harmful Than Others?
• Are There Gender Differences in Ethics in Public?
• Does the Ethics Committee Indian Scenario Adequately safeguard Trial Participants?
• Can Technologies Determine Modern Social Customs and Ethics?
• Can Technology Affect Ethics and Culture?
• Did Thomas Jefferson Abandon His Ethics for the Lousiana?
• Does Business Ethics Make Economic Sense?
• Does Business Ethics Matter?
• Does Collectivism Affect Environmental Ethics?
• Does East Meet West in Business Ethics?
• Does Ethics Improve Stock Market Resilience in Times of Instability?
• Does Ethics Training Neutralize the Incentives of the Prisoner’s Dilemma?
• Does Studying Ethics Affect Moral Views?
• Does the United States Government Have Environmental Ethics?
• Does Virtue Ethics Give Adequate Action Guidance?
• Does Virtue Ethics Make a Significant Contribution to Moral Theory?
• How Are Diversity and Ethics Interrelated?
• How Are Ethics and Politics Related to Aristotle’s Philosophy?
• How Are Ethics Different From Moral?
• How Are Knowledge and Doubt Linked in Mathematics and Ethics?
• How Are Personal Ethics Developed?
• How Did Aristotle Understands the Human Being Through Virtue Ethics?
• How Does Attitude Affect Work Ethics?
• How Can Business Ethics Help Companies?
• How Can Ethics Help to Achieve Happiness?
• Why Death and Ethics Are Inextricably Linked?
• Why Are Environmental Ethics Important in the Preservation of the Natural Environment?
• Why Ethics and Virtue Are Important in Leadership?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 26). 627 Ethics Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethics-essay-examples/

"627 Ethics Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethics-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '627 Ethics Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "627 Ethics Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethics-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "627 Ethics Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethics-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "627 Ethics Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethics-essay-examples/.

• Animal Ethics Research Ideas
• Bioethics Titles
• Ethical Dilemma Titles
• Personal Ethics Titles
• Ethical Relativism Essay Topics
• Social Democracy Essay Titles
• Social Development Essay Topics
• Nicomachean Ethics Essay Topics
• Social Justice Essay Ideas
• Moral Dilemma Paper Topics
• Social Security Paper Topics
• Social Problems Essay Ideas
• Cultural Relativism Questions
• Social Responsibility Topics
• Social Norms Essay Ideas

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Ethics in Everyday Life — The Importance of Ethics In Everyday Life

The Importance of Ethics in Our Daily Life

• Categories: Ethics Ethics in Everyday Life Personal Ethics

About this sample

Words: 530 |

Published: Oct 2, 2020

Words: 530 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Why I Share the Importance of Ethics in Our Daily Life?

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 508 words

5 pages / 2455 words

3 pages / 1419 words

6 pages / 2770 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Ethics in Everyday Life

The importance of ethics in personal life cannot be overstated. Ethics serve as the moral compass that guides our decisions, actions, and interactions with others. In this essay, I will explore the significance of ethics in our [...]

The case of Frank Timmons, a manager at a manufacturing company, presents a complex ethical dilemma that challenges traditional notions of leadership. In this essay, we will explore the background of the case, analyze the [...]

In a world driven by various motivations and influences, the ethical choices we make often come with the challenge of aligning our actions with what we believe is morally right. The phrase "doing what is right is not always [...]

NST. (2018, October). Nurturing noble values: Addressing changes in lifestyle major challenges. Retrieved from [...]

Many of the values and beliefs I possess, I actually developed at very early age. And as I have grown, my values have also changed or gone through numerous tests. And though I have held onto most of my values and beliefs, I [...]

In his article, “Living on a Lifeboat,” population biologist Garrett Hardin made an influential, albeit controversial, argument regarding the process of wealth and resource distribution (Hardin 1974). This paper will explore his [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Rethinking the Ethics of Tax Deductions

More from our inbox:, a welcome move on aid to ukraine, firearms safety on the set, when plastics recycling releases pollutants.

To the Editor:

Re “ Make a Difference This Tax Season ,” by Matthew Desmond (Opinion guest essay, April 14):

Mr. Desmond is, of course, right that tax rates and tax deductions are heavily skewed to favor the very wealthy. One of the solutions he offers, however, asks the somewhat wealthy to imitate the very wealthy: Take your deduction and give to your favorite charities.

That’s how the taxpayers end up subsidizing — through deductible philanthropy — huge bequests to operas, billionaires’ alma maters, vanity art collections and other pet projects.

If people just didn’t take the deductions, as Mr. Desmond also proposes, the savings could help fund main government responsibilities like schools, safety, health care and the like.

Better yet, reform the deductions.

Claude S. Fischer Berkeley, Calif. The writer is a professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.

If I forgo a few thousand dollars in tax deductions to which I am legally entitled, can I tell the government please add this to the low-income housing budget and don’t spend it on the F135 fighter jet engine?

I believe that I should pay higher taxes, and so should everyone as rich as I am, or richer. If they did, I would happily pay my share. Until the tax laws require this, I would rather take the deduction and contribute to the Economic Policy Institute or United for a Fair Economy, two nonprofits that are working for a fair tax system.

John L. Hammond New York The writer is professor emeritus of sociology at Hunter College and Graduate Center, CUNY.

Matthew Desmond questions whether it is ethical for those with high incomes to take advantage of many tax deductions they are legally able to take under the tax code.

It’s unreasonable to suggest that paying one’s taxes in compliance with the tax laws is unethical. He also fails to mention that people with the top 1 percent of income pay approximately 46 percent of federal income taxes — more than people with the lowest 90 percent of income combined.

According to Philanthropy Roundtable , the top 1 percent of earners give approximately a third of all charitable contributions. In addition, individuals with a net worth in the top 1.4 percent give approximately 86 percent of the charitable bequests made upon death.

Michael Sherman Wynnewood, Pa.

Thank you for this thought-provoking opinion piece. I often hear about long-term solutions to address poverty but appreciate the suggestions for what we can do on an individual level now as well as a broader collective response. It’s empowering and a good reminder that there are probably many viable strategies within reach.

April Stevens Quincy, Mass.

I am grateful for Matthew Desmond’s commentary. I would add that we should decline the deduction for charitable donations. These are gifts, not transactions , so spare us the tax write-offs, our names on the building, our names in the symphony program.

We are blessed to be leading comfortable lives in a nation with unconscionable disparities of wealth and opportunity. Giving has its own inherent rewards.

Michael Rooke-Ley San Francisco

I found Matthew Desmond’s opinion piece incredibly refreshing and on the mark. A country that overwhelmingly shovels its wealth to its rich, and especially to its very, very rich, is a morally and opportunistically bankrupt one. I believe it is also a foolish one that ignores the potential joy and community that a more equal country could have.

Together, we would be much better off if we emulated the Nordic nations, taxed the rich as we did in the 1950s (top rate of 91 percent), and enjoyed a society rich in community, fairness and a wide diversity of friendships.

R. Peter Wilcox Portland, Ore.

Re “ Speaker Sets Weekend Vote on Package for Long-Stalled Israel and Ukraine Aid ” (news article, April 18):

After resisting attempts to pass a foreign aid package that would provide vital military assistance to a desperate Ukraine, Speaker Mike Johnson finally appears ready to act, striking a deal that would alienate far-right Republicans while likely gaining support from Democrats to salvage his precarious position as speaker.

For months, Mr. Johnson was shamelessly doing the bidding of former President Donald Trump, who stonewalled House passage of a popular bill that combined President Biden’s plan for border security with a broad aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

The refusal to vote for critically important military assistance in the face of Ukraine’s rapidly deteriorating defensive position has been outrageous and comes from a vocal fringe minority of isolationist House Republicans who have completely politicized foreign policy.

Mr. Johnson seems to have done an about-face, possibly daring to enlist the help of Democrats to support his speakership along with their vote to pass the aid package.

In a dysfunctional Congress, it’s pathetic that such a deal is a novel idea, but it would be a long-delayed and welcome fresh start.

Roger Hirschberg South Burlington, Vt.

Re “ ‘Rust’ Armorer Is Sentenced to 18 Months for Involuntary Manslaughter ” (news article, April 17):

In the future, it would be prudent if the employment of set armorers is limited to retired law enforcement or military firearms instructors or shooting range control officers. These people have lived and breathed every aspect of firearms safety for many years and have the experience to ensure that tragedies like this do not happen again.

Lloyd Westerman New York

“ Recycling of Plastic Falls Short of Promise ” (news article, April 6) captures well the petrochemical industry’s failure to deliver any real solutions to the plastics crisis it has created.

Most “advanced recycling” methods are hardly new, but rather they use an incineration technology that has been around for decades. Petrochemical companies are greenwashing the process as “recycling” or “manufacturing” in an effort to exempt it from solid waste incineration rules under the Clean Air Act.

These facilities release dioxins, PFAS, flame retardants, benzene, formaldehyde, particulate matter and heavy metals. They also generate pyrolysis oil, a material so toxic that boat fuels made from it could cause cancer in every person exposed over a lifetime, according to a risk assessment by E.P.A. scientists .

The PureCycle “advanced recycling” facility in Ohio uses a different but equally problematic solvent-based process. As you describe, PureCycle has been riddled with technical and economic failures.

“Advanced recycling” is the centerpiece of an untenable campaign to make plastic waste disappear from sight — by turning it into air pollution — while the industry proceeds to triple or even quadruple production.

Cynthia Palmer Arlington, Va. The writer is a senior analyst for petrochemicals at Moms Clean Air Force.