In this paper, I will argue that Stace’s compatibilist argument 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 refute, the following two objections against compatibilism: the hard determinists’ argument that we have no free will due to causal determinism and the libertarians’ argument that we are not causally determined.
Compatibilism is the theory that causal determinism and free will are both true. Causal determinism is the theory that “all events are caused,” and an event only happens if “there is a set of conditions such that if the conditions were repeated, the event would recur” (Kessler 470). …show more content…
They would argue that only determinism is true and that free will cannot be true. They would also note that the individual’s internal factors such as psychological states and beliefs are simply a result of conflict between temperament and training. Temperament in this regard means heredity or biological characteristics. Training means the environment that the individual grows up in. Blatchford utilizes a hunter and rabbit analogy to object the possibility of free will. In this example, the hunter deciding whether or not to shoot a rabbit crossing in front of him is causally determined by his temperament and training. Thus, the hunter is influenced by biological factors and past influences; he cannot choose a random action (Blatchford 475). However, this objection is based on the incompatibilist definition of free will. If the more common definition of free will—the compatibilists’ definition—is applied to Blatchford’s rabbit analogy, then the hunter still has free will. This is the case because the whether or not the hunter shoots the rabbit depends on his psychological state. The hunter isn’t being physically or verbally threatened. Thus, he has the choice in whether he should kill the rabbit or not. Although the hunter is still causally determined by biological traits (temperament) and past experiences (training), the option to kill or not kill the rabbit still implies free will. As such, it is also important to note that the hunter’s internal, psychological state would still also be determined by external factors such as the hunter’s environment when he was growing up and any laws pertaining to the killing of the rabbit. For example, the hunter could choose not to kill the rabbit because he grew up a humanitarian due to his society’s laws and his upbringing. In this case, the hunter’s action would still be considered free
Compatibilism is the theory that causal determinism and free will are both true. Causal determinism is the theory that “all events are caused,” and an event only happens if “there is a set of conditions such that if the conditions were repeated, the event would recur” (Kessler 470). …show more content…
They would argue that only determinism is true and that free will cannot be true. They would also note that the individual’s internal factors such as psychological states and beliefs are simply a result of conflict between temperament and training. Temperament in this regard means heredity or biological characteristics. Training means the environment that the individual grows up in. Blatchford utilizes a hunter and rabbit analogy to object the possibility of free will. In this example, the hunter deciding whether or not to shoot a rabbit crossing in front of him is causally determined by his temperament and training. Thus, the hunter is influenced by biological factors and past influences; he cannot choose a random action (Blatchford 475). However, this objection is based on the incompatibilist definition of free will. If the more common definition of free will—the compatibilists’ definition—is applied to Blatchford’s rabbit analogy, then the hunter still has free will. This is the case because the whether or not the hunter shoots the rabbit depends on his psychological state. The hunter isn’t being physically or verbally threatened. Thus, he has the choice in whether he should kill the rabbit or not. Although the hunter is still causally determined by biological traits (temperament) and past experiences (training), the option to kill or not kill the rabbit still implies free will. As such, it is also important to note that the hunter’s internal, psychological state would still also be determined by external factors such as the hunter’s environment when he was growing up and any laws pertaining to the killing of the rabbit. For example, the hunter could choose not to kill the rabbit because he grew up a humanitarian due to his society’s laws and his upbringing. In this case, the hunter’s action would still be considered free