Jischke Essay - Free Will vs. Determinism_ An Examination of the Compatibility Theory
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Michigan *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
233
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by AdmiralPorcupineMaster986
Jischke 1
Andrew Jischke
Professor Walsh
05/12/2022
Free Will vs. Determinism: An Examination of the Compatibility Theory
The debate between free will and determinism is one of the oldest and most enduring in philosophy. The question at the heart of this debate is whether our actions are determined by causes external to us (determinism), or whether we are free to choose our actions (free will). This
essay will examine the compatibility theory, which proposes that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
The concept of free will is based on the belief that individuals are free to make their own choices and are therefore responsible for their actions. This is a fundamental principle in many areas of human life, including law, ethics, and religion. The belief in free will suggests that individuals are not merely puppets of fate or slaves to their environment, but are capable of making meaningful choices that affect their lives and the lives of others.
On the other hand, determinism is the belief that all events, including human actions, are determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is often associated with the scientific view of the world, where everything is governed by laws of nature. According to determinism, if we knew all the laws of nature and the state of the world at any given time, we could predict the state of the world at any future time.
The compatibility theory, also known as compatibilism, proposes that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. Compatibilists argue that individuals can be free and responsible for their actions, even in a world governed by deterministic laws of nature. They suggest that free will is not about the ability to do otherwise, but about acting in accordance with one’s desires and values. Compatibilism has been defended by many philosophers, including David Hume and John Stuart Mill. Hume argued that free will should not be understood as the ability to have done otherwise in an identical situation, but rather as the ability to act according to one’s desires. Mill, on the other hand, suggested that determinism is compatible with free will as long as it does not involve compulsion or constraint.
Jischke 2
However, compatibilism has also faced several criticisms. One of the main criticisms is that it fails to adequately address the problem of moral responsibility. If our actions are ultimately determined by causes external to us, how can we be held morally responsible for them? This question exposes a potential flaw in the compatibility theory and opens up a discussion about the nature of moral responsibility.
Incompatibilists, on the other hand, argue that free will and determinism are indeed incompatible. They maintain that if our actions are determined, then we cannot be free. Incompatibilists, therefore, reject the compatibilist view that freedom is about acting in accordance with our desires. They argue that true freedom requires the ability to do otherwise – a
condition that determinism does not allow. There are two main types of incompatibilism: hard determinism and libertarianism. Hard determinists argue that determinism is true, and therefore, free will does not exist. This view has significant implications for our notions of moral responsibility. If we do not have free will, then it would seem that we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. Libertarians, on the other hand, argue that we do have free will and that determinism is false. They maintain that we are free agents capable of making undetermined choices. This view aligns more closely with our everyday experience and intuition. However, it faces the challenge of explaining how free will can exist in a world that appears to be governed by deterministic laws of nature.
The debate between free will and determinism raises profound questions about identity, morality, and the nature of reality. It forces us to examine our deeply held beliefs about our own freedom and responsibility. Whether we side with the compatibilists, the hard determinists, or the
libertarians, we are left with a paradox that challenges our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world.
In conclusion, the compatibility theory offers a compelling resolution to the free will vs. determinism debate. By redefining what it means to be free, compatibilists provide a way to reconcile the seemingly contradictory notions of free will and determinism. However, this theory
is not without its critics, and the debate continues to be a central issue in philosophy.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help