Answer 1.
Compatibilism is basically stated as follows that we can have free will and we can
exercise it also, no matter all the actions and events in this world are predetermined. In the other
words free will is compatible with determinism. But this practice has a common indigestible core
related to it. Everything is predetermined, In other words what has happened, is has to happen,
the agent could not do it otherwise in any way then how he is morally responsible for whatever
he has done. It does not seem logical that if we can`t help ourselves for choosing to do something
or not to do something then how we can be morally responsible. Because our belief and
intentions are made by the outside world in the past so what we have done is not a fault of
ourselves.
It seems that he has chosen to do that act and if one had chosen some act then surely he
could have choose it otherwise also, which is not compatible with determinism. This problem is
known as ‘problem of metaphysical freedom’. And metaphysical freedom is reluctant in order to
accept compatibilism. According to which, if there is no obstacle for doing something it does not
follow that must have to do it. And if it doesn`t than how the determinism can be compatible
with metaphysical freedom. And in reality metaphysical freedom can be replaced by free will.
Because if one has free will then he must have the metaphysical freedom because he has the
freedom to chose to do otherwise. So the future state can`t be unique for a given present state
because an agent could have done different things at a same instant of time because h...
... middle of paper ...
...get strong punishment, Which follows the large public interest, that was
come into picture according to surveys conducted by different new channels on `Nirbhaya Rape
Case` in Delhi last year.
Now that person is not blameworthy for his act, because the person has done nothing
wrong, it was the instant anger that leads the person to choose to throw acid. And we are more
concerned about how we can get rid of these type crimes. And the victim can get some type of
compensation to cure her injuries, there is no point of justice. And punishment is not a solution.
In the current scenario where innocent can escape from getting punishment, now no one should
get punishment. Instead of punishing that person we should provide that person such an
environment so that he has no reason to repeat his crime in future.
As a philosophical theory, determinism itself lays claim to truth, which therewith presupposes freedom, in accordance with what I have just said.
The view of free will has been heavily debated in the field of philosophy. Whether humans possess free will or rather life is determined. With the aid of James Rachels ' article, The Debate over Free Will, it is clearly revealed that human lives are "both determined and free at the same time" (p.482, Rachels), thus, in line with the ideas of compatibilist responses. Human 's actions are based on certain situations that are causally determined by unexpected events, forced occurrence, and certain cases that causes one to outweigh the laws of cause and effect. The article also showcases instances where free will does exist. When human actions are being based on one 's emotions of the situation, desire, and simply that humans are creatures that are created to have intellectual reasoning. I argue, that Rachels’ article, provides helpful evidence on compatibilists responses that demonstrate free will and determinism actions come into play with each other.
Due to this consequence argument between compatibilism and determinism, we no longer have free
It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations. It simply is,” (86). With this in mind, everything in life is left up to fate; there is no chance at free will because every moment is already a moment and no one is capable of changing that.
Frankfurtean compatibilism provides a more refined model than Humean compatibilism. Humean compatibilism has denied the deterministic notion of freedom-the ability to have chosen otherwise. Hume then provides a new definition of freedom, as “a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will” (“Of Liberty and Necessity”, 23). In Hume’s view, as long as we act according to our desires and belief, we are exercising freedom of will and freedom of action. Frankfurt adds a further distinction within our desires, and concludes that our will is free if and only if we act on a first-order desire determined by our second-order desire. An agent’s will, defined by Frankfurt, is “the notion of an effective desire-one that moves (or will or would move) a ...
...ent. I cannot prove that either determinism or freewill is false and therefore I hope to have shown that the compatibilist theory is the most logical and that both determinism and freewill can co-exist on some level.
In philosophy today, free will is defined as, “the power of human beings to choose certain actions, uninfluenced by pressure of any sort, when a number of other options are simultaneously possible.” Philosophers have debated the issue of whether humans truly possess free will since ancient times. Some argue that humans act freely, while others believe that, “Every event, including our choices and decisions, is determined by previous events and the laws of nature—that is, given the past and the laws of nature, every event could not have been otherwise,” which is an idea known as determinism (Barry, #14). This relationship between free will and determinism continues to puzzle philosophers into the twenty-first century. An example of a piece to the free will puzzle, are the schools of thought of Incompatibilism and Compatibilism. Incompatibilism is defined as,
For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
Determinism is the theory that everything is caused by antecedent conditions, and such things cannot be other than how they are. Though no theory concerning this issue has been entirely successful, many theories present alternatives as to how it can be approached. Two of the most basic metaphysical theories concerning freedom and determinism are soft determinism and hard determinism.
.... ... middle of paper ... ... Nevertheless, as I stated earlier, for something to be determined, I believe that God is required. So, by saying that one needs to eliminate a God and other requirements to have free will, then one falsifies determinism, thus making this view incorrect.
Megan Darnley PHIL-283 May 5, 2014 Compatibilism and Hume. The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions is on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event is because of some prior cause.
Free will is the ability for a person to make their own decisions without the constraints of necessity and fate, in other words, their actions are not determined. Determinism is the view that the initial conditions of the universe and all possible worlds are the same, including the laws of nature, causing all events to play out the same. Events are determined by the initial conditions. Two prominent positions advocated concerning the relation between free will and determinism are compatibilism and incompatibilism. In this essay I shall argue that compatibilism is true. Firstly, I shall explain what compatibilism is and consider possible objections and responses to the theory. I shall then examine incompatibilism and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and argue that compatibilism is a stronger argument and, as a result, show why it is also true.
Now, the great question here is about the compatibility of determinism and free will. Saying that a world is deterministic directly attacks the proposition of having ultimate freedom and, if determinism exists, it is not possible to have freedom of deciding future
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).