· Agency: Agency means having the ability to act.

"Agency" is usually about doing

things on purpose, but it can also happen without intention.

· · Action: Action is usually explained by the idea of doing something intentionally

(on purpose).

· · Standard Theory of Action: This theory says actions happen because of

thoughts, desires, or intentions inside a person. These thoughts cause the action.

· · Intentional Action: Intentional actions are actions done for a reason. For
example, turning on a light because you want to see is an intentional action.

· · Different Views: Some people think you don’t always need to focus on
intention. For example, you can act without meaning to, but it’s still an action.

· · Agency Without Intentions: Some theories argue that beings can show agency
(the ability to act) even without thinking about it beforehand.

· · Causality in Action: According to the standard theory, actions happen because

of cause-and-effect thinking. Your desires and beliefs lead to actions.

· · Human Agency: Humans can think about their desires and sometimes choose
which desires to follow. This makes human agency special.

· · Debate: Some argue that agency can’t just be explained by desires and beliefs.
They think action may come from a deeper source, like a person's ability to start
actions.

· · Empirical Challenges: Some researchers question whether our thoughts and

reasons really control what we do, or if something else is at play.

· · Bratman's View on Agency: Bratman believes that full agency, or self-

governance, doesn't need a mental state that can't be rejected. Instead, he says that
"self-governing policies" help define who the agent is over time and guide which
desires should matter in decision-making. These policies allow the agent to support or
reject certain motivations, which can be re-examined or changed later.

· · Mele's Defense of the Standard Theory: Mele argues that looking for a mental
attitude to represent the agent is unnecessary. Desires aren't agents because they don't
make decisions or act. Instead, even when agents fail to act correctly, they still
participate. The standard theory doesn't aim to explain perfect human agency (like
self-control or autonomy) but rather focuses on intentional actions.

· · Standard Theory: This theory explains agency by saying that actions come
from beliefs and desires, which represent the reasons behind the action. These mental
states guide behavior. It doesn't claim to explain perfect human agency but focuses on
explaining why people do certain things.
· · Mental Representations: These are the internal beliefs, desires, and thoughts
that guide an agent's actions. For example, believing it’s going to rain makes you
decide to take an umbrella. The standard theory uses these to explain actions.

· · Agency without Mental Representations:

Some non-human agents, like bacteria, can act without representational mental states (e.g., beliefs
or desires).

The standard theory might be too complex for explaining simpler organisms’ actions, which may just
involve maintaining existence, not mental representations.

· Embodied and Skilled Action: Some human actions, like driving or playing
music, don’t require conscious thoughts or mental representations. Critics argue these
skills can be explained without the standard theory's complex mental processes.

· · Response to Critics: Supporters of the standard theory say that while some
actions are automatic (like habits), they still connect to long-term goals or intentions,
so representational mental states are important for a full explanation of agency.

· · Radical View: Some suggest we can explain all kinds of agency, including
human agency, without using mental representations. But this raises difficult
questions, like how we plan for the future without mental representation.

· · Other Kinds of Agency: There are other types of agency, like mental or
collective agency, and it’s worth exploring if the standard theory can explain these or
if they need a different approach.

Incapacitation

Incapacitation prevents future crime by removing the defendant from society.

Examples of incapacitation are incarceration, house arrest, or execution pursuant to
the death penalty.

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation prevents future crime by altering a defendant’s behavior. Examples of

rehabilitation include educational and vocational programs, treatment center
placement, and counseling. The court can combine rehabilitation with incarceration or
with probation or parole. In some states, for example, nonviolent drug offenders must
participate in rehabilitation in combination with probation, rather than submitting to
incarceration. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-901.01. This lightens the load on jails and prisons
while lowering recidivism, which means reoffending.

Retribution

Retribution prevents future crime by removing the desire for personal avengement (in
the form of assault, battery, and criminal homicide, for example) against the
defendant. When victims or society discover that the defendant has been adequately
punished for a crime, they achieve a certain satisfaction that our criminal procedure is
working effectively, which enhances faith in law enforcement and our government.

Restitution

Restitution prevents future crime by punishing the defendant financially. Restitution

is when the court orders the criminal defendant to pay the victim for any harm and
resembles a civil litigation damages award. Restitution can be for physical injuries,
loss of property or money, and rarely, emotional distress. It can also be a fine that
covers some of the costs of criminal prosecution and punishment.

Figure 1.5 Different Punishments and Their Purpose

Key Takeaways

Specific deterrence prevents crime by frightening an individual defendant with

punishment. General deterrence prevents crime by frightening the public with the
punishment of an individual defendant.

Incapacitation prevents crime by removing a defendant from society.

Rehabilitation prevents crime by altering a defendant’s behavior.

Retribution prevents crime by giving victims or society a feeling of avengement.

Restitution prevents crime by punishing the defendant financially.

Introduction: The Paradox of Freedom

Ladies and gentlemen, we stand before you today to argue that complete
freedom, while seemingly desirable, is fundamentally more imprisoning than a
structured existence defined by limitations. The allure of unbounded freedom
often masks the chaos and uncertainty that ensue when individuals are left to
navigate life without guidance or boundaries. It is within these constraints that
true personal and societal growth can flourish.

Argument 1: The Burden of Infinite Choices

Consider for a moment the overwhelming nature of complete freedom.
Imagine a world where every choice is available: career paths, lifestyles, and
moral decisions are entirely up to the individual. While this may sound
appealing, it often leads to what psychologists call "choice overload," resulting
in anxiety and paralysis. How can one navigate through a sea of options
without any anchors to guide them? In a society where every decision is left to
the individual, people often find themselves trapped in a cycle of indecision.
They feel imprisoned not by rules, but by the weight of their own freedom.

Argument 2: Lack of Social Cohesion

Now, let’s examine the societal implications of complete freedom. Without
 shared values and common rules, society devolves into chaos. Laws and
ethical guidelines exist not to stifle us but to protect us and maintain social
order. Think of traffic regulations: they are essential for preventing accidents
and saving lives. Without them, would we not find ourselves in a state of
constant fear and danger? The absence of constraints leads to disorder, and in
such an environment, personal freedom becomes meaningless. How can one
truly be free when the threat of chaos looms large?

Argument 3: The Comfort of Boundaries

Boundaries provide the structure needed for human flourishing. In educational
settings, for instance, discipline fosters an environment conducive to learning.
Without rules, students may indulge in distractions and miss out on the
opportunity to develop valuable skills. The successful individuals we admire
are often those who have navigated life’s challenges within a framework of
limits. By embracing certain restrictions, they discover their true potential.
Therefore, it is the imposition of necessary constraints that enables individuals
to thrive, rather than a complete absence of boundaries.

Argument 4: Ethical Responsibility

Furthermore, complete freedom often disregards the moral obligations
individuals have toward one another. A world devoid of ethical standards
breeds selfishness and exploitation. Imagine a society where everyone acts
solely on their own desires, without consideration for others. Is this freedom,
or is it a recipe for tyranny of the strong over the weak? Ethical constraints
bind us together and foster a sense of community and mutual respect. True
freedom must incorporate responsibility, or it devolves into chaos and
oppression.

Conclusion: A Balanced Freedom is True Freedom

In conclusion, while the idea of complete freedom may seem appealing, it is
ultimately more imprisoning than liberating. Without boundaries, individuals
face the burden of choice, social cohesion erodes, and ethical responsibility
wanes. True freedom is not the absence of constraints but the ability to
navigate life within a structure that promotes growth, security, and harmony.
We must embrace the shackles that enable us to live freely and meaningfully.

Opposition: Freedom Must Be Unfettered to be True

Introduction: Shackles Are the Real Prison

Ladies and gentlemen, we stand in firm opposition to the proposition, arguing
that it is not freedom that imprisons us, but the shackles imposed by societal
norms, rules, and expectations. The idea that constraints can enhance our lives
is fundamentally flawed. Shackles confine us, diminish our potential, and
hinder our ability to make choices. True freedom — the ability to live without
constraints — is what empowers individuals to achieve their highest potential.

Argument 1: Shackles Stifle Individual Growth

Let’s begin by acknowledging the suffocating nature of societal expectations.
Shackles, whether moral, cultural, or legal, restrict our ability to explore who
we truly are. They impose limitations that can lead to conformity rather than
creativity. Consider the artist who wishes to experiment with new forms but
feels stifled by societal norms. Without the freedom to push boundaries,
innovation stagnates. Are we willing to sacrifice the growth of individuality
for a false sense of security? Freedom is the catalyst for creativity and
personal exploration, enabling individuals to break free from conformity.

Argument 2: Freedom Empowers Responsibility

Moreover, the notion that complete freedom leads to irresponsibility is a
misconception. True freedom fosters a sense of accountability. When
individuals are free to make their own choices, they learn from their mistakes
and grow as a result. Consider a student who chooses to skip classes — in a
free society, they understand the consequences of their actions and are more
likely to take responsibility for their learning. Freedom allows individuals to
cultivate their ethical frameworks, leading to a deeper understanding of right
and wrong. By imposing shackles, we stifle this essential learning process.

Argument 3: Progress Requires the Breaking of Shackles

History is replete with examples of progress achieved through the breaking of
shackles. From civil rights movements to the fight for gender equality,
progress occurs when individuals challenge the constraints imposed upon
them. It is through complete freedom that society evolves. Without the ability
to question and defy the status quo, we become stagnant. Think of the
advancements in technology and social justice that have emerged from the
actions of free thinkers. Complete freedom is the engine of societal progress,
allowing individuals to challenge injustice and create a better world.

Argument 4: Shackles Lead to Oppression

Finally, let’s address the oppressive nature of shackles. History shows us that
shackles have often been tools of control used by those in power to subjugate
the weak. Authoritarian regimes thrive on limiting freedoms, silencing dissent,
and perpetuating fear. In a society where shackles prevail, individuals live in
constant fear of punishment for speaking out or acting against the norm. Is this
what we want for our society? True freedom liberates individuals from
oppression, allowing them to advocate for justice and equality without fear of
retribution.

Conclusion: Freedom is the Ultimate Liberation

In conclusion, it is clear that shackles, not freedom, are the true imprisoners of
the human spirit. Complete freedom enables individuals to grow, learn, and
progress, while constraints hinder personal development and social
advancement. We must reject the notion that freedom is dangerous; instead,
we should celebrate it as the ultimate liberation. In a world where freedom
reigns, individuals thrive, societies progress, and true humanity flourishes.
·