- Thu Nov 03, 2022 5:50 pm
#98109
Hi Salman,
Sure thing. For dual passages, I tend to combine the main point and argument since the argument tends to be pretty straightforward in the shorter passages.
Passage A
Viewpoints: Neuroscientists: behavior is completely explained by brain activity. Traditional legal view: people are rational actors who make choices regarding their behavior, and thus it is reasonable to punish them for those acts. Author: We should move to a deterrence model of criminal justice
Structure: Description of scientific development, application of the development to legal theories
Tone: Supportive of new scientific ideas, critical of traditional criminal justice theory
Argument/MP: Because the brain can control people's actions, it can be unreasonable to seek retributive punishment for behavior in certain circumstances.
Passage B
Viewpoints: Determinists: All human action can be explained without free will. Ayer (soft determinism): internally controlled actions are free actions. Hume: You can have determinism and free will coexist. Author: Actions that are from a disease-free brain are free, but also determined.
Structure: Introduction to a view of free will, comparison of two types of actions, and explanation of how free will can coexist with determinism.
Tone: Open, intellectual, and positive toward the philosophers discussed
Argument/MP: Determinism can coexist with free will so long as we understand free will to mean those actions that are not constrained by outside influences.
Overall, I'd also note that there are strong similarities between the determinist view and the neuroscientist view. I'd also note that the two passages talk about similar but distinct concepts. Passage A talks about the responsibility people ought to have for their actions given that their actions can often be tied to brain activity, whereas Passage B looks at free will in a different way, comparing internal and external sources of behavior.
Hope that helps!
