Corliss Lamont's Determinist Illusion Argument

1) In this paper I argue that Corliss Lamont’s argument for freedom of choice is false because three of his eight arguments against the Determinist illusion argument are the same. These three arguments creates one actual argument, I will call them the master argument. Lamont also never provides the full Determinist explanation on the idea that the perception to choose is an illusion. This falsifies his argument and makes it fail as a whole because he is not giving the Determinist illusion argument proper justice.

2) In argument one, Lamont contends the perception of having free will is so strong that when the Determinist says it’s an illusion they are not providing enough evidence that this perception of free will is wrong. Lamont admits

in argument one that he has no proof the perception of free will is true. However, it’s up to the Determinist, not the Indeterminist to provide evidence for the intuition to be false (Lamont p. 253 col 1).
In argument two, Lamont again alludes to the illusion problem in the Determinist argument. He contends that multiple potentials are not an illusion because no matter what you choose it can have a cause. Therefore, one has free will to choose from any available option giving each option its own cause (p. 254 col 1).
In argument three, Lamont argues another point for alternative options. Lamont argues that if Determinism were true, not only would the feeling of having choice be an illusion, but everyday thinking about different possibilities in how you develop as a person and everyday problems, would have to be an illusion as well (p. 254 col 1).
3) I contend Lamont’s master argument is false because he reiterates the same argument three times without explaining the Determinist reason for arguing the perception of choice is an illusion. Lamont gives arguments to contend the idea of illusion but never gives the Determinist view of illusion proper explanation. The full Determinist argument, which I will refer to as the “Illusion Argument,” is that people having the perception of choice comes from not knowing the causes that affect the choice you’re going to make. To add to the explanation, the Determinist points out how one doesn’t have control over his/her deepest thoughts, so according to a Determinist, even our acts we perceive to have control over are not in our control because we don’t know our deepest values. The lack of knowledge of what one could do gives you the “illusion” of having the ability to make a different choice. By not providing the full Determinist point of view on illusion, Lamont never gives the argument proper justice, making his master argument look weak, Lamont tries to make the Determinist “Illusion Argument” look like magic by only giving the reader part of the view.
Lamont’s first argument states that the perception of free choice is so strong, one must have the freedom to choose between the options one perceives to have. He contends it’s the Determinist’s job to explain the perception of free choice as just an illusion. If Lamont had provided the full Determinist argument it would have knocked out his first argument because the Determinist “Illusion Argument” accounts for the perception of choice Lamont tries to point out as false. This gives reason for Determinism that Lamont avoids attacking in his argument. By arguing that Lamont’s first argument is wrong, it would make arguments two and three wrong because they never attack the full Determinist “Illusion Argument.”
The three arguments reiterate the same point because argument one addresses the strong perception of choice. Two reiterates the problem Lamont has with Determinism, pointing out the illusion by using “playacting” instead of illusion. I contend he addresses the same problem. Three does the same, but instead points towards everything one could decide must be an illusion. All three of these arguments address the same problem and none of them bring a new idea to attack the Determinist “Illusion Argument.”
4) Lamont could object that the Determinist “Illusion Argument” never provides an explanation, it just provides a convenient explanation on how you get the perception of choice. Lamont could argue the Determinist “Illusion Argument,” isn’t actually an argument because saying we lack the knowledge to see we don’t have the ability to choose doesn’t actually provide an explanation. He could point out how it relies on a “faith argument.” The “Illusion Argument,” for example, arguably says I have faith we just lack the knowledge to understand the necessity of the future, not actually having any real evidence in favor of Determinism. This argument refers to a “magic” reason for having the perception of choice and explaining why one doesn’t have free will to make a choice of the perceived possibilities.
Lamont could then go on to argue that by establishing that the Determinist’s “Illusion Argument” doesn’t work, he could keep his master argument in place.

This explains why each of his similar arguments can remain because they attacked the intuition of choice (argument one), addressing the multiple possibilities (argument two), and the problem solving problem (argument three). He could argue each of these arguments attacks the same “Illusion Argument” in a different way. For example, argument one, addresses one’s perception of having choice, arguing that even though it may be an illusion you still have a strong enough perception of choice that you will always act as though you have the ability to choose any of the different possibilities.

Lamont could argue that argument two addresses a different aspect of the “Illusion Argument” because it talks about the actual possibilities one has. Lamont could point out how his argument addresses the many choices you have as you develop as an individual and how each of those choices can have a different cause. Argument two’s difference from argument one is that it points more towards the actual choices you have, not the

perception.
Lamont could argue for argument three by pointing out how it builds upon argument two by saying that not only is the ability to choose an illusion, but solving problems would have to be an illusion as well because it would have to be already determined how those problems will be solved. While this argument looks to address the same thing, it actually addresses the ability to think up those possibilities. By arguing for three, Lamont addresses different ways one would have to be having an illusion in every way one thinks.
5) My counter objection is that even though Lamont may consider the Determinist explanation weak and explained through a convenience, it does not mean you can leave out the explanation of the “Illusion Argument.” Lamont does not give the reader the ability to see the full Determinist argument.

He only gives them a narrow scope of the Determinist argument in order for Lamont to more easily get his point across to the reader. In doing so, his counter argument becomes false because he is not attacking the Determinist argument, just his version of the “Illusion Argument.”

Even if Lamont fully explained the Determinist “Illusion Argument” it would not give his three arguments the ability to stand on their own because they would still be too similar. In the end, although each deals with a way of attacking the Determinist illusion of choice, they are attacking the same aspect of the Determinist argument. Each of Lamont’s arguments says the “Illusion Argument” is failing because they all point out the strong perception of choice must mean we have the freedom to choose, never arguing against the argument in different ways.

To conclude the master argument is first knocked out by Lamont not providing the full “Illusion Argument,” by not giving the reader the full argument it makes his master argument false. The fact the three separate arguments are based around the same idea it affirms the master argument must be false as it does not have enough to attack the Determinist “Illusion

Argument.”