Philosophy is a heavy topic with several layers to discuss. One of the layers that will be discussed in this paper is the basis of free will and determinism and the question of their compatibility. I will argue alongside philosopher Peter van Inwagen that determinism and free will are incompatible.
Exposition (300)
Peter van Inwagen spoke a lot about having theories about a few notions such as free will, determinism, compatibilism and incompatibilism, and more. But what do these things mean? Free will and determinism are the main subjects of this argument, the two rulers of the opposing teams. Free will, according to van Inwagen’s theory, is the ability that humans have to choose between several different possible courses of actions, meaning …show more content…
One deal breaker for this confliction can be the concept of moral responsibility. The meaning of “moral responsibility” can vary from philosopher to philosopher, from textual circumstances to textual circumstances. For the sake of this paper, I will define moral responsibility as the status of deserving praise or blame for an act committed by the agent (the agent being the one committing the act); free will is necessary for a person to be held morally responsible for any action they take, that includes not just receiving the blame but also being praised and rewarded. If free will does exist and if a person can make conscious decisions and take mindful actions, then they must be held morally responsible for their actions or for the consequences that follow. Likewise, if determinism exists instead and if the concept of time is actually laid out on a plane of existence and everything is preplanned, then it is impossible for a person to be held morally responsible for their action since they cannot make actual conscious decisions. To draw a comparison, a blind woman cannot be punished for bumping into another human or a car or anything of the sort. To her defense, her blindness is a limitation on her existence and bumping into the said human or car is not in her control. So if free will agrees with being morally responsible for your actions but determinism …show more content…
They may argue free will is a term used very loosely in terms of the word “free” or “freedom”. We cannot experience absolute freedom, they would say, because absolute freedom does not exist. In certain situations, for example if we go on a hunger strike to raise awareness for a cause, we have our freedom because starving ourselves is our choice and it is in our control. However, if our circumstances do not permit us to have access to food - said circumstances can vary from poverty to being in a physical location where food is scarce or simply unavailable - then our freedom is taken away because we are not choosing to not eat. This is, of course, a general example of the concept of the term “free” being used loosely and can satisfy a number of given situations; but this is what will be used in this paper to make a
Exposition (300)
Peter van Inwagen spoke a lot about having theories about a few notions such as free will, determinism, compatibilism and incompatibilism, and more. But what do these things mean? Free will and determinism are the main subjects of this argument, the two rulers of the opposing teams. Free will, according to van Inwagen’s theory, is the ability that humans have to choose between several different possible courses of actions, meaning …show more content…
One deal breaker for this confliction can be the concept of moral responsibility. The meaning of “moral responsibility” can vary from philosopher to philosopher, from textual circumstances to textual circumstances. For the sake of this paper, I will define moral responsibility as the status of deserving praise or blame for an act committed by the agent (the agent being the one committing the act); free will is necessary for a person to be held morally responsible for any action they take, that includes not just receiving the blame but also being praised and rewarded. If free will does exist and if a person can make conscious decisions and take mindful actions, then they must be held morally responsible for their actions or for the consequences that follow. Likewise, if determinism exists instead and if the concept of time is actually laid out on a plane of existence and everything is preplanned, then it is impossible for a person to be held morally responsible for their action since they cannot make actual conscious decisions. To draw a comparison, a blind woman cannot be punished for bumping into another human or a car or anything of the sort. To her defense, her blindness is a limitation on her existence and bumping into the said human or car is not in her control. So if free will agrees with being morally responsible for your actions but determinism …show more content…
They may argue free will is a term used very loosely in terms of the word “free” or “freedom”. We cannot experience absolute freedom, they would say, because absolute freedom does not exist. In certain situations, for example if we go on a hunger strike to raise awareness for a cause, we have our freedom because starving ourselves is our choice and it is in our control. However, if our circumstances do not permit us to have access to food - said circumstances can vary from poverty to being in a physical location where food is scarce or simply unavailable - then our freedom is taken away because we are not choosing to not eat. This is, of course, a general example of the concept of the term “free” being used loosely and can satisfy a number of given situations; but this is what will be used in this paper to make a