Analysis Of Richard Taylor Theory Of Fatalism

The important question of free will is as follows; Are humans really ever able to control their actions and decisions? Richard Taylor a 20th century philosopher has written a relevant and thought provoking article entitled Fate, where in he attempts to answer this question. Taylor believes in the philosophical doctrine of fatalism, a view closely related to hard determinism. There is a clear and concise difference between these two theories. Fatalism can be defined simply as: “the belief that whatever happens is unavoidable. ” Hard determinism is defined as: the belief that whatever happens is predetermined by the conditions that preceded it . I will begin by outlining the key points of each theory to establish this difference. This will then help me to thoroughly analyse Taylor’s argument for fatalism. Taylor asks four questions after describing his thought experiment which he titles ‘The Story of Osmo.’ It is my belief that his responses to these questions are inadequate. He then fails to assert a convincing reply to an objection he raises himself. The theory of fatalism is often disputed by philosophers, and it will be my undertaking to challenge Taylor’s argument for fatalism by discussing the incorrect assumptions he makes. …show more content…
Philosophers prefer a more accurate logical argument for fatalism, a similar account of the one Aristotle defines in his paper De Interpretatione is as follows;
P1) I will perform an action tomorrow.
P2) If it is true that I will perform the action tomorrow, then it has always been true that I would perform the action tomorrow.
P3) Similarly; if it is true that I will not perform the action tomorrow, then it is has always been true that I was not going to perform the action tomorrow.
P4) Regardless of if the action is performed or not, then whatever the outcome is, it has always been true that it was going to happen.
C) Thus fatalism is