Question

Initial Post: post your reactions to the following statements in 225-250 words.

(Please note the use of AI will automatically result in a zero. All discussion posts are checked for AI).



David G. Myers claimed that "everything psychological is simultaneously biological". This statement has far-reaching implications; for example, if all that we do is actually governed by a biological process, can we really be said to have free will? If you believe in free will, how do you reconcile this belief with Myers' statement? If you do not believe in free will (e.g., you believe that all of our actions are causally determined by forces both external and internal), do you still believe in morality and right and wrong? Does it make sense to say someone had a choice and thus should be punished for their behavior if the science of psychology tells us they really had no choice in the matter? Give an example to further your explanation.

Keep the wording unprofessional and simple

Answer 1

David G. Myers’ claim that "everything psychological is simultaneously biological" really makes you think about how much control we have over our actions. If everything we do comes down to biology—like our brain chemistry, genetics, and even hormones—then it raises serious questions about free will. It's tricky because if our choices are just the results of biological processes, can we really say we’re free to choose what we want?

I personally do believe in free will to some extent. I think we have the power to make choices, but those choices can be influenced by our biology and environment. For example, someone who grew up in a violent household might struggle to make different choices due to their background. We can't ignore these influences, but that doesn’t mean we can’t hold people accountable for their actions.

Regarding morality, even if we don’t have complete free will, I think we still have the concept of right and wrong. People should be held responsible for their actions, even if those actions are influenced by factors beyond their control. For example, if someone commits a crime while under the influence of a substance that disrupts their judgment, we might feel sympathy for them, but we still acknowledge that they made a choice. It’s a complex issue, but I think accountability and understanding biology can coexist in our views on morality.