1. If you were to argue that although a person with an IQ of 60 cannot be a world-renowned physicist, she or he still has the freedom to choose within limits of what is physically, psychologically, and socially possible, you would be presenting which of the following positions?
A. Soft determinism
B. Hard determinism
C. The feeling of freedom
D. Hedonism
is it A
2. Which of the following refers to circumstances (e.g., presence of mental illness) surrounding a criminal event that reduce, but do not eliminate, moral responsibility and the severity of punishment imposed?
A. Omissive circumstances
B. Mitigating circumstances
C. Justifications
D. Criminal nullification
is it B
I agree with both your answers.
1. To answer the first question, the argument being presented is that although a person with an IQ of 60 may not have the capability to become a renowned physicist due to intellectual limitations, they still have freedom of choice within the bounds of what is physically, psychologically, and socially possible. This position is known as "soft determinism."
To arrive at this answer, let's break down the options:
A. Soft determinism: This position supports the idea that free will and determinism can coexist. It suggests that individuals have the ability to make choices within the confines of external factors.
B. Hard determinism: This position states that free will is an illusion, and all actions are predetermined by factors beyond our control.
C. The feeling of freedom: This option doesn't directly relate to the argument being presented. It refers to the subjective experience of feeling free, which may or may not align with the concept of actual freedom.
D. Hedonism: This option refers to the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain as the ultimate goals in life, which is not relevant to the argument being presented.
From the provided options, A. Soft determinism aligns with the argument, so the correct answer is A.
2. The second question asks which term refers to circumstances surrounding a criminal event that reduce moral responsibility and the severity of punishment imposed, but do not completely eliminate them. The correct term is "mitigating circumstances."
Let's examine the options:
A. Omissive circumstances: This term does not accurately describe the concept described in the question.
B. Mitigating circumstances: This aligns with the description provided in the question, as it refers to factors that reduce the level of moral responsibility and punishment severity.
C. Justifications: Justifications involve circumstances that, under certain conditions, can legally excuse or justify an action, such as self-defense.
D. Criminal nullification: This term doesn't accurately capture the concept described in the question.
Based on the given options, B. Mitigating circumstances is the correct answer.