here is what I have so far…please dont laugh:
In comparison with the positivist view, the traditional view is fundamentally sound. Furthermore, since human beings have a free will they are morally responsible for their actions.
Human beings have a free will in which they can choose to do one thing or another. Throughout the evolutionary process, man has always been free. From thousands of years ago up to this point we have been free to make our own decisions. When humans are faced with a choice, that choice is an instantaneous event that has nothing to do with heredity. Choices are instinctual, governed by the activity in our brain. For example, think of an infant and the choices it makes. It chooses to cry when it wants something and it chooses to smile at a familiar face. Where is the heredity in this case? The infant could be three months old, or a year old; it doesn’t matter. This governing principle is with us our entire life. We choose because we can choose. Furthermore, there may be factors that influence our choices, but they don’t dictate them. On the other hand, there are others who share an opposing view.
Robert Blatchford’s view is that all choices are caused by heredity and environment. Robert says that our nature and our training make us decide to do good or evil. He goes on to say that, “the will is not free, if it were free man could not know right from wrong until he was taught” (Blatchford, p. 34). For example, when a man hesitates between doing one thing or another, the conflict is between his temperament and his training not his supposed free will. He also states that we can “foretell the action of certain men in certain cases” (Blatchford, p. 38). Furthermore, we can do this because each man’s heredity and environment will determine the choice each man makes in each certain case. However, with that said, human beings do have a free will that is not dictated by heredity and environment.