Understanding the Agency Theory

Agency Theory on Prezi

Truman Show- Free will and determinism

In The Truman Show, the main character (Truman) is born and becomes central to a 24/7 television show that encompasses every aspect of his life. In other words, his life is the show. However, throughout most of his life he doesn't know this. He is oblivious to the fact that he isn't living in the "real" world--instead, he lives in a set. A very big set. All of the "citizens" in his hometown are actors and actresses, and almost everything presented to Truman is part of an overall scheme to keep him ignorant of his true circumstances. Many would argue that he doesn't have the freedom of choice; the freedom to make his own decisions--that he lacks free will. But I think otherwise. Truman does in fact possess free will, although it is often overshadowed by his circumstances and the manner in which "choices" are presented to him.

When I say Truman is free, I mean it in the context of the Agency Theory, which states that a free act is is an act caused by an agent, where an agent is understood to be a person, or intelligent doer, possessing the capacity of volition. In this case, Truman is the agent. He makes decisions as a result of an agent--himself. In everything that happened, he was able to make a choice. And although his choices were limited in the sense that the producers hoped that he act a certain way, it doesn't escape the fact that Truman was indeed free to make a choice; that he was free.The situations presented to him are just as applicable to us as it is to Truman. If Truman was in fact not free, then every choice he "made" would have to go 100% in favor of the script--the "choice" the producers wanted him to make. But, this is not the case. We are all prone to emotions such as love, for example, just as Truman was when he fell in love with a member of the cast (he thought the girl was a fellow student). After all, we're human. So is Truman.

As demonstrated through the Agency Theory, Truman is free. Because he was in this "forbidden" relationship with a woman (from the cast), we can clearly see that he is in fact free. The producers didn't want this to happen. It was against their plot-line and they tried everything they could to keep it from happening. In the end, they took her off the show. This single fact makes Truman free, although the circumstances of the "television show" situation make it seem that he is only a puppet of the producers.

Milgram Experiment

In the context of human freedom, agency theorists believe that a free act is an act caused by an agent, where an agent is understood to be a person, or intelligent doer, possessing the capacity of volition. This view proposes that an event isn't one without a cause, nor is it an event caused by an inner state (as compatibilists see it)--instead, it is caused by an agent. In Milgram's experiment, subjects were instructed to apply electric shocks to another individual if they answered a question incorrectly. Shockingly enough, at the end of the experiment it was found that around 65% of the subjects continued on applying these "shocks" that were of lethal voltage. It was concluded that ordinary, law-abiding citizens would go to the extremes when insisted/told by a strong authority figure. In other words, most of the subjects were "obedient" and continued on with the experiment although they were in a sure conflict between their conscience and what they were told they must do.
In terms of the Agency Theory and ethics, the Milgram experiment shows us that agents can be causes. Instead of the scientific determinist view that every event has infinitely many causes, the Agency theory proposes that a person, an intelligent doer, etc. (or agent) can be a cause rather than an event. In the case of the Milgram experiment, the authority figure insisted/told the subjects that it was imperative that they continue because it was "essential to the experiment." So, most subjects continued on with applying electric shocks to the "quiz taker". This proves that people, or agents can indeed be causes. The subjects were obedient and made a decision not because of an event, but at the cause of an agent insisting them to do so.

Do-now #109 (Wednesday Sept. 7)

An example of something that people used to believe and was useful to them at the time, was the knowledge of how to warm up the body properly before exercise. Back in the day, there was little knowledge on how to correctly warm up the body before an athletic event. The typical warm up consisted of a couple jogs around the field/court and static stretching. At the time, scientists and the athletic community didn't know better and though this was the proper way of warming up. It wasn't until years later that the scientific community discovered that the old-school jog and stretch was detrimental to athletic performance before an event (such as a match or game). They found out that static stretching elongated the muscles (thus the increased flexibility), which weakened the muscles. Before any athletic endeavour, the athlete wants to be ready to perform at high intensity and powerfully, not weak and cold. Thus, the dynamic warm-up was introduced to the athletic community. It consists of low-intensity movements (with the related sport) that gradually increase in intensity, to ensure the body is warm and fully prepared to move at an optimal level while decreasing the risk of injury. Basically, the idea is to move the limbs of the body in a controlled manner to get the muscles warm and ready for competition.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Going to school "well-developed paragraph" (instead of Voki)

According to my cost-benefit analysis, a utilitarian would most likely not support going to school despite the overwhelming number of benefits. This is probably due to the fact that they'd see the expensive tuition and extra costs for sports fees proof that it was hurting someone financially. Thus, they'd be experiencing pain; not pleasure. The person I used in the situation of "going to school" for my cost-benefit analysis was me. Although there were many costs, including a large sum of money every year for sports trips/tournaments, these very opportunities led to the nurturing of my academic and athletic skills. I was able to learn more about myself and develop positive characteristics that would help others as I intend to pursue a job in personal training in the future. Going to school presented me with opportunities that basically molded me into the person I am today. But then again, in opposition to the utilitarian view, I have individual rights. I can do what I want to do with my own life. If it costs me a lot, it's okay because I know that the benefits outweight the costs for me. It might not be for others though. Not everything can be given a value. The utilitarian sees the costs as exponential because of the pure numbers, and put a meager value to the benefits of going to school. According to what I believe (against utilitarianism), not everything can be given a dollar value. This includes the life skills and characteristics I've developed over the years of attending school. To me, the benefits are worth the cost of going to school.

http://www.makebeliefscomix.com/Comix/?comix_id=10277955C545109

Mrs. Robin...I've tried for about 30 minutes to "embed" this comic strip and I can't find how to do it. I've watched your How-to video but there is no embed code for the "makesbeliefcomix" website. I am so frustrated and feel like breaking something right now.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Going to School

Costs:
Tangible

• School Tuition Fee
• Uniforms every year
• Sports trips fees
• Supplies for class/hw/projects
• Motorcycle Taxis
• Getting to school (gas)

Intangible

• Mental Fatigue
• Physical Exertion on a daily basis
• Discouragement at times.

Benefits:
Tangible

• Education
• Knowledge to attend College and get a degree...hopefully
• Possibly get a decent to well-paying job

Intangible

• Unforgettable memories
• Experiences that shape one's life
• Life-long friends
• Life-long lessons learned
• Development of Character
• Opportunities that you wouldn't have had if you didn't go to school.

In conclusion, the benefits greatly outweigh the costs. Some people might argue, but I guess it's due to the fact that not every school is the same--obviously. If they have a bad experience with school than it is fair that they'd argue that the costs outweigh the benefits. Again, it's a personal thing/issue.