Freedom of will Flashcards
Question philosophers have about our actions
Can we act freely?
What types of restrictions may there be to our actions?
Physical, political, social and cultural restrictions
Question philosophers have about our willings
Are our willings free from constraint?
Examples of when willings are constrained
Phobias, addictions, neurosis, ‘brainwashing’
Question philosophers have about free will
Could free will be just an illusion?
If the freedom of our will could be an illusion…
Why think that we are free?
Why do we think that we have free will?
We know so from introspection
Argument from introspection
- If I have an immediate/direct awareness of my will as free, my will is free
- I have a immediate/direct awareness of my will as free
Therefore 3. My will is free
Challenge to premise 1 of the argument from introspection
Just because man is unaware of the causes of his action, does not follow that these causes don’t exist
Why think that we have free will?
Free will is a necessary condition of our being morally responsible for our actions, and we know that we are morally responsible for our actions
Free will as a necessary condition of moral responsibility: premise 1
When an agent is morally responsible for doing something wrong, he is blameworthy, he deserves hard treatment for said action
Free will as a necessary condition of moral responsibility: premise 2
It would seem unfair to treat agents in these ways unless their actions were up-to-them
Free will as a necessary condition of moral responsibility: conclusion
Therefore agents are deserving of praise or blame only if their actions are up-to-them, only if they have free will
The argument from moral responsibility
- If we are morally responsible then we have free will
- We are morally responsible
Therefore 3. We have free will
What is a morally responsible agent?
A person who is both able to do moral right/wrong and is accountable for her morally significant conduct
What are the two main conceptions of what it means to have free will?
- The garden of forking paths model
2. The source model
The garden of forking paths model
Free will is the ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct, the ability to choose between the relevant courses of action
If we imagine an agent’s future as a garden path…
The path may be straight leading from a single past into a single future but at a given point the path will fork
In the garden of forking paths model, when does free will become possible?
When the present offers from the agent’s singular past, more than one path into the future and the agent is able to choose between them
The source model
Free will is the ability of a persons to exercise control over their conduct
How to understand control in the source model?
As the agent playing a crucial role in the production of their actions
Two ways an agent may act in the source model
- An agents actions may be a mere ‘bodily happening’
2. An agents actions may be a product of their own agency
When does free will become possible in the source model?
When a person is the ultimate source of their actions
What are possible explanations for our actions?
Determined by God, brought about by chance, casually determined
When is something divinely ordained/predetermined?
When it occurs by virtue of an initial ordering of events by God
If an action is a free and responsible action then…
It must be under the control of the agent
Are actions which are divinely predetermined under the control of the agent?
No
Are actions which have been divinely predetermined free and responsible actions?
No
When is an action brought about by chance?
An action occurs by chance when there is no variable which can explain its happening
Are actions which occur by chance under the control of anything?
No
Is whatever happens by chance a free and responsible action?
No
When is an action casually determined?
An action is casually determined when the occurrence is casually necessitated by a set of antecedent events prior to it
In casual determinism what combines to entail every truth about the future?
The facts of the past and the laws of nature
If casual determinism is true, given the actual past and the fixed laws of nature…
Only one future is possible at any moment in time
Why do casual determinism and the garden of forking paths model conflict?
Casual determinism asserts that there is only one path, whereas the garden of forking paths allows for the path to fork
Incompatibilist argument
- If a person acts of her own free will, then she could have done otherwise
- If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does
Therefore - If determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will
What belief do incompatibilists hold?
If determinism is true, no one acts of their own free will
Hard determinist position
Determinism is true so no-one does act of their own free will
Libertarian position
Some people do act of their own free will, so determinism is false
Cases of constraint
Where conditions of constraint do obtain, I wouldn’t have acted otherwise, even if I had so chosen
Cases of freedom
Where conditions of constraint do not obtain, I would have acted otherwise if I had so chosen
What do compatibilists use to falsify premise 2 of the incompatibilists argument?
Conditional analysis on the ability to do otherwise
How to tell whether someone could have acted otherwise
Ask could they be said to have been able to do otherwise
Can i) my actions are completely causally determined and ii) I would have acted otherwise if I had chosen to do so, both be true?
Yes, because determinism is about what will happen in the future given the actual past, so can also be how the future would be different given a different past
Even when actions are casually determined…
It may still be true that I would have acted otherwise in the possible world where that had been my chosen path
Do actions that are casually determined therefore threaten freedom?
No what threatens freedom are circumstances in which we are constrained to choose something when we wanted to choose something else instead
What do compatibilists conclude with the conditional analysis?
Determinism doesn’t entail that no one can do otherwise. Premise 2 of the incompatibilist argument is false and free will is compatible with determinism
What do some argue is better than a conditional analysis?
Categorical analysis
What does the consequence argument argue one would need to do in a deterministic world?
In order to alter how their own future would unfold they would need to have the power to alter the facts of the past or the laws of nature
What does the consequence argument show?
Seeing as no one can alter the facts of the past or the laws of nature, if determinism is true, no person has the power to alter how their future will unfold
What does the consequence argument support?
Premise 2 of the incompatibilist argument
