Chisholm's Model Of Indeterminism

Determinism is a philosophical idea that attempts to place all events that occur as inevitable as they are predetermined by previous events and the laws of nature. However there are many who came to be known as indeterminists who reject the notion that free will is absent from the process that causes events to occur. Indeterminists believe that there are possible events that have different probabilities of occurring based on human beings free will. Then Chisholm’s view of the agent-casual theory presents humans as always going through a decision process when making an action that leads up to an event they work through their desires in first and second order volitions and then they act. These actions are free from previous events and cannot …show more content…
I will also argue that Chisholm’s version of indeterminism does a better job at presenting indeterminism as it presents the human brain as a sort of ground zero for events, they originate there and not from some outside …show more content…
First order volitions are our desires, things we want to do and second order volitions are our desires about our desires, things we want to want to do. This complex relationship better our volitions presents human actions as unbound by any law. When presented with a situation we can have a variety of responses that all work out from our mind not a predetermined event. An example Chisholm uses is that of a public official with morality and a bribe. There are four options to take: one the public official would “actively cause himself to receive the bribe” , two “he would not himself do anything what will insure that he receives the bribe” , three he would make sure to do something that prevents the event of him receiving a bribe, and four “he may not solicit the bribe, but he would allow himself to keep it” . Chisholm’s view is that events can be varied because of the workings of our desires in out first and second order volitions. In each of the possible events he places one where were his first and second volitions want him to get the money, one where his first order volition is against the taking the money but the second order volition accepts taking a bribe one where he will not act but will take it. In the third both of his volitions are against the money and the bribe so he actively works to stop the event from occurring and in the last scenario his second order volition