The philosophical question of free will has been debated for years and has spawned many theories, papers and never ending arguments. Soft determinism along side with hard determinism and libertarianism make up the three theories of free will.By focusing on the works of Stace and Cahn, I aim to prove that the idea of soft determinism is not an inherently flawed argument and that free will and determinism are compatible. In the argument of free will, soft determinism falls in the middle between hard determinism and libertarianism. On one side you have hard determinism, which Cahn defines as “In the case of every event that occurs, antecedent conditions, known or unknown, ensure the event's occurrence” (208). With hard determinism there is no
…show more content…
For instance, you turn on the faucet in your house to get a glass of water. The event of turning on the faucet was caused because you had a sudden desire to drink some water. A hard determinist would say that you had no choice and that you were always going to get that glass of water, a soft determinist would say that while an event had caused you to get the water you still freely chose to get up and fill your glass with water. One of the main arguments against soft determinism is that it is an inherently flawed argument because soft determinists change the definition of free will to make it compatible with determinism. In Cahn’s “Freedom or Determinism” he discusses how the definition of free will differs between a soft determinist and a hard determinist. He states “According to the hard determinist, an action is free if it is within my power to perform it and also within my power to not perform it. According to the soft determinist, an action is free if it is …show more content…
If we create a scenario where you are being robbed at gunpoint, you have two options, you can give the robber your wallet and valuables or you can refuse and be killed. In this case you hand over everything and the robber runs off leaving you alive. Now a hard determinist would say that this proves determinism. The act of you handing over your wallet was caused by the robber threatening death, you did not have the power to not give them your wallet. By using our new definition of a free act we can show that in fact you chose freely but the circumstances before you handed over your wallet determined your action. If we rewind time to the point of the robber threatening you, there are two choices. One leaves you without your possession but alive, the other leaves you dead. In the end, you desired to live and you chose to live. While the events before you determined you would have to choose between life or death, that doesn't mean that your were forced to hand over your money. Your desire to live just outweighed your desire to hold onto your
For instance, you turn on the faucet in your house to get a glass of water. The event of turning on the faucet was caused because you had a sudden desire to drink some water. A hard determinist would say that you had no choice and that you were always going to get that glass of water, a soft determinist would say that while an event had caused you to get the water you still freely chose to get up and fill your glass with water. One of the main arguments against soft determinism is that it is an inherently flawed argument because soft determinists change the definition of free will to make it compatible with determinism. In Cahn’s “Freedom or Determinism” he discusses how the definition of free will differs between a soft determinist and a hard determinist. He states “According to the hard determinist, an action is free if it is within my power to perform it and also within my power to not perform it. According to the soft determinist, an action is free if it is …show more content…
If we create a scenario where you are being robbed at gunpoint, you have two options, you can give the robber your wallet and valuables or you can refuse and be killed. In this case you hand over everything and the robber runs off leaving you alive. Now a hard determinist would say that this proves determinism. The act of you handing over your wallet was caused by the robber threatening death, you did not have the power to not give them your wallet. By using our new definition of a free act we can show that in fact you chose freely but the circumstances before you handed over your wallet determined your action. If we rewind time to the point of the robber threatening you, there are two choices. One leaves you without your possession but alive, the other leaves you dead. In the end, you desired to live and you chose to live. While the events before you determined you would have to choose between life or death, that doesn't mean that your were forced to hand over your money. Your desire to live just outweighed your desire to hold onto your