reply to discussion question 2
Original Question
First, consider the following thought-experiment.
Let’s suppose a person named Margaret applies for a mortgage. The bank pulls her credit report, and learns that she has faithfully paid her bills for many years now. They give her the mortgage at their best possible interest rate.
Then another person named Howard applies for a mortgage. He almost never pays his bills if he can help it, and he’s been bankrupted twice and foreclosed on once. The bank turns him down.
Using John Stuart Mill’s version of soft determinism (also known as compatibilism), explain the reasoning that led the bank to approve one loan and deny another.
I NEED A REPLY TO THIS RESPONSE
The reasoning that led to Margaret’s mortgage success and Howard’s denial can be explained with soft determinism, also known as compatibilism. John Stuart Mill spoke of compatibilism as relating to the character of a person. Their character and morals giving a kind of clue as to what they will do with their free choices. “Actions that stem from a person’s character are free, in the sense that a person can change or modify his/her character.†(Pressler). When a person acts in character and makes a choice their actions are free, and consequences still apply. John Stuart Mill believed moral responsibility is due when a person acts in character. What this means to me is repetitive actions which are representative of a person and their character mean that person should be held accountable. This explains why a person with a terrible credit history can reasonably be assumed a bad investment by a bank. There is a history of actions, made with free will that speak to the borrower’s character. Howard’s actions are then bound to moral responsibility and the bank can clearly not trust him with a mortgage. By contrast Margaret has always paid her bills which reflects her character and is able to be trusted with a mortgage at the best interest rate.
