How Does Dennett's Ability To Have Second Order Volitions

Dennett’s Ideas on Moral Responsibility Encourage Impulsive, Emotionally-Driven Actions The question of moral responsibility is handled differently by two predominant, modern-day philosophers, Frankfurt and Dennett. Frankfurt argues that if a person has second order volitions, then he or she is always completely responsible for his or her decision, because second order volitions are free will. If they have not, however, developed the ability to have second order volitions then they are still responsible for not having second order volitions and, therefore, responsible for not being able to control their actions because of neglecting the thought and reason required to reach second order volitions. On the other hand, Dennett argues that whether
Furthermore, Frankfurt goes on to state that “no animal other than man, however, appears to have the capacity for reflective self-evaluation that is manifested in the formation of second-order desires” (7). Forethought and reasoning is how humans reach the ability to have second order volitions. Second order volitions can be achieved by everyone. Though Frankfurt argues there are those called “wantons” that cannot reach the coveted ability, and even denies them the title of human saying they “are not persons,” this isn’t true (Frankfurt 11). Every human alive can achieve second order volitions. The reason that many have yet, or never do reach the ability, is because their surrounding family, friends, and society does not value forethought and reasoning. American society highly values actions of impulse and emotion rather than actions carefully thought out and contemplated. This does not encourages second order volitions. By teaching members of our society from an early age that acting on thought is not selfish as we tend to believe it is now a higher percentage, possibly even 100%, of our population would have second order volitions. It is because we discourage this type of action, citing it as self-centered and untrue to one’s self that so many “wantons” live among
He believes that “it simply does not matter at all to moral responsibility whether the agent in question could have done otherwise in the circumstances” (Dennett 553). Dennett believes that in most situations, the average person “could not have done otherwise” and therefore never really has free will, because if they are put in that exact situation again, they will act the same way (Dennett 553). He does believe, however, that one can train themselves to act differently based on an analysis of one’s own previous actions. Knowing how you yourself react to certain stimuli, you can retrain yourself to react differently, or add a step in to calm/prepare yourself before reacting. He argues that this is where we expel our free will. Dennett’s idea of holding everyone morally responsible for every action no matter the circumstance they take is a toxic one. This doesn’t encourage thought. In fact, it encourages the exact opposite. By holding everyone morally responsible for every action they make, no matter if they had control over it or not, only supports one’s notion that he or she does not have free will and might encourage he or she to not care about his or her actions or the consequences of those actions as he or she feel they have no control. This does not encourage members of a society to be their best selves, but rather it encourages an apathetic attitude towards choices, actions and