1. Introduction
Robert Kane believes libertarians, before him, have not done an adequate job of explaining how their view of free will can be reconciled with modern scientific views about human beings and the cosmos. As a result, this causes Kane to address the conflict between free will and its compatibility with modern scientific views. Kane asks the two following questions. First, can a libertarian view of free will requiring ultimate responsibility be made intelligible without appealing to obscure or mysterious forms of agency or causation? Second, can such a free will be reconciled with what we know about human beings in the modern physical, biological, and human sciences? (Kane 133). To answer these questions, Kane supposes people need to rethink issues about freedom, responsibility, and indeterminism from their foundation, without relying on appeals to extra factors (mystery, luck, arbitrariness, agent causation, etc.) Kane’s view seems to be extremely convincing and well thought out. He attempts to demonstrate a free will that requires the sources or origins of a person’s actions be in them and not in something else. According to Kane, this criterion for free will is ultimate responsibility.
However, Manuel Vargas presents a powerful objection to Kane’s view, which I believe is worthy of a more potent response from Kane because it seems to be …show more content…
Kane reintroduces Luther’s assertion, “Here I stand, I cannot do other” and believes if he was determined by his character and motives when he made it, then Luther could still be responsible for his assertion to the amount that he was responsible for forming his present character and motives through earlier struggles and choices in the past that brought him to this
Robert Kane believes libertarians, before him, have not done an adequate job of explaining how their view of free will can be reconciled with modern scientific views about human beings and the cosmos. As a result, this causes Kane to address the conflict between free will and its compatibility with modern scientific views. Kane asks the two following questions. First, can a libertarian view of free will requiring ultimate responsibility be made intelligible without appealing to obscure or mysterious forms of agency or causation? Second, can such a free will be reconciled with what we know about human beings in the modern physical, biological, and human sciences? (Kane 133). To answer these questions, Kane supposes people need to rethink issues about freedom, responsibility, and indeterminism from their foundation, without relying on appeals to extra factors (mystery, luck, arbitrariness, agent causation, etc.) Kane’s view seems to be extremely convincing and well thought out. He attempts to demonstrate a free will that requires the sources or origins of a person’s actions be in them and not in something else. According to Kane, this criterion for free will is ultimate responsibility.
However, Manuel Vargas presents a powerful objection to Kane’s view, which I believe is worthy of a more potent response from Kane because it seems to be …show more content…
Kane reintroduces Luther’s assertion, “Here I stand, I cannot do other” and believes if he was determined by his character and motives when he made it, then Luther could still be responsible for his assertion to the amount that he was responsible for forming his present character and motives through earlier struggles and choices in the past that brought him to this