Visith Mak
Professor Rioux
Philosophy
22 October 2017
Stace’s Defense of Compatibilism Analysis Since the day humans were born into the world, choices have been made to them that will influence their daily lives as they grow up. Some people believe that these choices are not from the people and that our actions could be controlled. Every day, people are determined to make their lives better by making choices, such as going to school to get an education. There are other opportunities that could have been made differently but one was determined to go to school and from that point on, made decisions based on the value of education.
W.T Stace who was born in London, United Kingdom wrote an article called “Compatibilism, or Soft Determinism” …show more content…
Many people believe that free will are inconsistent with determinism and that both words do not belong together, and that they are complete opposite meanings. Stace believes that many determinists have used the wrong definition of free will and that they disposed of the word “free will” because they cannot find its meaning. If they can accept Stace’s definition then they would believe that free will do indeed exist. To prove that the words determinism and free will are compatible with each other, Stace provided a table with some events in which the term “free will” is being used in conversations daily. One of the cases of free acts that he listed was that “Gandhi fasting because he wanted to free India,” and for unfree acts is that “the man fasting in the desert because there was no food.” Naturally, one would think that both scenarios are showing the acting of free will, but Stace explains the differences between how a person acts on free will and how not to. The characteristics is what makes a person act upon free will but for unfree acts, they are not made from characteristics. The characteristics of freely done acts are “those who immediate causes are psychological states in the agent” and acts done not freely are “those who immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent.” What Stace means for freely done acts is that one is caused by the desire, thoughts and emotions from the inside that made them act the way that they did. From Stace’s example, Gahndi was filled with emotions and desire to save India which led him to fasting. For unfree acts, the external factors can be physical forces or conditions from the outside of the body that one does not have control over. For example, a lack of food in a desert was the cause for someone to starve. Therefore, the lack of food, threats, beatings, and forcible moving from the examples that he provided from his unfree acts
Professor Rioux
Philosophy
22 October 2017
Stace’s Defense of Compatibilism Analysis Since the day humans were born into the world, choices have been made to them that will influence their daily lives as they grow up. Some people believe that these choices are not from the people and that our actions could be controlled. Every day, people are determined to make their lives better by making choices, such as going to school to get an education. There are other opportunities that could have been made differently but one was determined to go to school and from that point on, made decisions based on the value of education.
W.T Stace who was born in London, United Kingdom wrote an article called “Compatibilism, or Soft Determinism” …show more content…
Many people believe that free will are inconsistent with determinism and that both words do not belong together, and that they are complete opposite meanings. Stace believes that many determinists have used the wrong definition of free will and that they disposed of the word “free will” because they cannot find its meaning. If they can accept Stace’s definition then they would believe that free will do indeed exist. To prove that the words determinism and free will are compatible with each other, Stace provided a table with some events in which the term “free will” is being used in conversations daily. One of the cases of free acts that he listed was that “Gandhi fasting because he wanted to free India,” and for unfree acts is that “the man fasting in the desert because there was no food.” Naturally, one would think that both scenarios are showing the acting of free will, but Stace explains the differences between how a person acts on free will and how not to. The characteristics is what makes a person act upon free will but for unfree acts, they are not made from characteristics. The characteristics of freely done acts are “those who immediate causes are psychological states in the agent” and acts done not freely are “those who immediate causes are states of affairs external to the agent.” What Stace means for freely done acts is that one is caused by the desire, thoughts and emotions from the inside that made them act the way that they did. From Stace’s example, Gahndi was filled with emotions and desire to save India which led him to fasting. For unfree acts, the external factors can be physical forces or conditions from the outside of the body that one does not have control over. For example, a lack of food in a desert was the cause for someone to starve. Therefore, the lack of food, threats, beatings, and forcible moving from the examples that he provided from his unfree acts