The discussion regarding free will and determinism is extensive and ever pressing. David Hume believes that the two (of which he refers to as liberty and necessity respectively) are intrinsically compatible, and that the dispute surrounding the issue is a result of failing to accurately define the terms. Hume proposes that through his interpretations of the two, it will become apparent that the debate about liberty and necessity is merely verbal. While some insist that Hume’s account of liberty and necessity is unsatisfactory, I posit that the debate will remain at a stalemate unless said opposition can refute Hume without using antecedent definitions.
Necessity
Hume defines necessity as the combination of two circumstances: “the constant conjunction of similar objects, and the consequent inference [we make] from one to the other”. In fact, he claims that necessity, if understood only as the necessary causal force of objects, cannot be observed in nature. What we witness, when we think we are experiencing deterministic events, is …show more content…
a drug addict). If one permits the idea that certain internal causes do not necessitate liberty, then one is charged with the difficulties of establishing the requirements for an internal cause to be considered legitimate. I do not believe that this task is as insurmountable as it is made to appear. Generally speaking, there is a consensus of normativity regarding the state of a person’s inner faculties. We also recognize impaired judgements as a component in judging responsibilities in society already. For example, drunk drivers are still held responsible for their actions, while those who are mentally ill are allowed a degree of leniency. My point is, while discretions must be used in determining whether a volition is valid, the errand is accomplishable. We should not give up an endeavour simply because it is
Necessity
Hume defines necessity as the combination of two circumstances: “the constant conjunction of similar objects, and the consequent inference [we make] from one to the other”. In fact, he claims that necessity, if understood only as the necessary causal force of objects, cannot be observed in nature. What we witness, when we think we are experiencing deterministic events, is …show more content…
a drug addict). If one permits the idea that certain internal causes do not necessitate liberty, then one is charged with the difficulties of establishing the requirements for an internal cause to be considered legitimate. I do not believe that this task is as insurmountable as it is made to appear. Generally speaking, there is a consensus of normativity regarding the state of a person’s inner faculties. We also recognize impaired judgements as a component in judging responsibilities in society already. For example, drunk drivers are still held responsible for their actions, while those who are mentally ill are allowed a degree of leniency. My point is, while discretions must be used in determining whether a volition is valid, the errand is accomplishable. We should not give up an endeavour simply because it is