In this paper, I will argue that compatibilism is the only viable position in the debate concerning free will and determinism. In doing so, I will present, explain, and critically evaluate compatibilism. I will then consider, but ultimately reject, the following two objections against compatibilism: the hard determinists’ beliefs that we have no free will due to causal determinism and the libertarians’ belief that we are not causally determined.
Compatibilism is the belief that causal determinism and free will are both true. Causal determinism is the idea that “all events are caused,” and events only happen if particular causes of those events occur (Kessler 470). In other words, causal determinism states that every event that has ever taken …show more content…
Stace illustrates this point by using his “five-legged animal” analogy. In this analogy, an individual incorrectly believes that the word “man” means a five-legged animal. Thus, whenever the same individual observes the world and notices that there are no five-legged animals in it, he or she might assume that men do not exist even though they are incorrect. Stace observes that this “preposterous conclusion would have been rached because he was using an incorrect definition of ‘man’” (Stace 2). In order words, the individual’s incorrect assumption that men do not exist is because of his or her misunderstanding about the definition of “man.” According to Stace, this misunderstanding is also the same issue with “free will.” Compatibilists argue that hard determinists incorrectly assume that causal determination implies there is no free will. Instead of using the incompatibilist definition of free will, compatibilists define free will through its common usage in conversation. Thus, free will—as stated before—is a condition in which an individual’s actions are caused by psychological states within the individual. In this perspective, an individual is still causally determined, however, whether the individual has free will is determined by internal and external factors. Stace uses the comparison between Ghandi fasting and a man lost in a desert who can’t find food to
Compatibilism is the belief that causal determinism and free will are both true. Causal determinism is the idea that “all events are caused,” and events only happen if particular causes of those events occur (Kessler 470). In other words, causal determinism states that every event that has ever taken …show more content…
Stace illustrates this point by using his “five-legged animal” analogy. In this analogy, an individual incorrectly believes that the word “man” means a five-legged animal. Thus, whenever the same individual observes the world and notices that there are no five-legged animals in it, he or she might assume that men do not exist even though they are incorrect. Stace observes that this “preposterous conclusion would have been rached because he was using an incorrect definition of ‘man’” (Stace 2). In order words, the individual’s incorrect assumption that men do not exist is because of his or her misunderstanding about the definition of “man.” According to Stace, this misunderstanding is also the same issue with “free will.” Compatibilists argue that hard determinists incorrectly assume that causal determination implies there is no free will. Instead of using the incompatibilist definition of free will, compatibilists define free will through its common usage in conversation. Thus, free will—as stated before—is a condition in which an individual’s actions are caused by psychological states within the individual. In this perspective, an individual is still causally determined, however, whether the individual has free will is determined by internal and external factors. Stace uses the comparison between Ghandi fasting and a man lost in a desert who can’t find food to