A PHILOSOPHICAL CASE ANALYSIS ON THE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The case that is presented for argument is about the President of the United States lying about having sexual intercourse with a young staff member. This case will be analyzed using the freedom versus determinism approach.
Freedom Vs Determinism, Definition
The determinist philosophical framework establishes that what happens in the present is determined by the past and it could not have happened in any other way. Humans in the determinist point of view are subject to the conditions around him and cannot act for or against any of the situation for the very reason that not only are the situations fixed and predetermined he is also not free. Freedom on the other hand, relegates to the person the responsibility and morality of his action. Freedom and moral responsibility goes hand in hand because a person is not responsible for that which he has no control of. Determinism and freedom are two incompatible arguments on human behavior.
Discussion
For the purpose of discussion, let us make two clear and definite positions in the case presented. First it is assumed that the President really has had a sexual intercourse with an intern. And second, the President has lied under oath about his relationship with the said female staff member.
What happened with the President of the United States could not have happened any other way as there were antecedent conditions known and unknown to the public and the President himself that naturally caused the action. This means that there were necessary and uncontrolled conditions that occurred previously and which determined and caused the sexual relationship. There was no way that the President can avoid the situation. There is even no way that the antecedent conditions were changed because the antecedent conditions were nothing but slaves to the predetermination of the previous events, so on and so forth. For the determinists, the President cannot be faulted for his action as he was a victim to the conditions that have happened previously and during the actual sex act. The controversy will be taken with a grain of salt by the determinists, brushing it aside as a natural human phenomenon determined by uncontrolled and antecedent conditions. Blaming and punishment is unjustified because the President has neither moral obligation nor responsibility to be answerable to his actions. He just does not have the freedom to exert his moral responsibility. It is his fate as fate would have it.
The freedom approach on the other hand, puts the responsibility of the act on the President himself. The president is free. As a free person he has the freedom to decide and choose and act with an utmost sense of moral responsibility as a human being and as a person occupying the highest position in the land. The President is to blame as he could have avoided the situation using moral reasoning alone. For a married man who has vowed on marital fidelity, a sexual relation with another woman is wrong. For a person who is elected and entrusted with a very sensitive and powerful position in the land, a sexual relationship in the office is unprofessional, in the ethical sense. Given that the president is a free, moral and responsible person, he has compounded his misconduct by lying under oath. The President then has committed two offenses: sexual infidelity in the eyes of the holy matrimony and gross misconduct in the criteria of ethical working standards.
The President is free. He has the free will to decide on and act on the situation, to make a choice from among the most trivial of matters to the most serious one involving the intern (which has a political implication) and on matters relating to national concerns and global security. He has the power to do and not to do. This is basically the essence of being free, to choose to make a decision between what is good and bad within the yardstick of morality. The President is a free man and he has the power of choice and to take responsibility of the consequences of his choices. Therefore in the freedom perspective, the President will be tried in the courts.
In conclusion, the deterministic framework regards social phenomena as irreversible and determined by fate. In this case, social control in the form of norms and customs and laws are not applicable because man, slaved to his fate is blameless. Imagine a world left to fate, without the necessary deterrent capability of laws, society will be anarchic. The freedom framework on the other hand, regards man and society within the morality and responsibility yardstick of good or bad, responsible or not responsible. Man, in a free society can be tried using the ethical and moral standards and regulations for his action. This is to ensure that his behavior is regulated and society is placed in a harmonious balance of right and wrong.
REFERENCES
Freedom and Determinism. [online] Available at:< http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~curd/Free.htm> [Accessed 29 May 2011].
Freedom and Determinism. [online] Available at:<http://spot.colorado.edu/~oddie/det.html> [Accessed 29 May 2011].
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment