Analyzing Strawson 's Three Arguments Against The Incompatibilist From His Paper, Freedom And Resentment '

Strawson points out in premise two of his basic argument that in order to be truly morally responsible for one’s actions one would have to be Causa Sui, in a certain mental aspect. Causa Sui is the belief that something is the cause of itself. Which he later says is impossible to be the cause of oneself. If his basic argument relied on the validity of premise two then it would be impossible

In the Philosophy, Determinism has many different categories. Actually according to the textbook, the Determinism is the view that every event, including human actions, are brought about by previous events in accordance with the natural laws that govern the world. Human freedom is an illusion. Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza does not deny that people’s wishes and desires will lead to the soul, and he said, "but neglected one important

Over the course of time, in the dominion of philosophy, there has been a constant debate involving two major concepts: free will and determinism. Are our paths in life pre-determined? Do we have the ability to make decisions by using our freedom of will? While heavily subjective questions that have been answered many different authors, philosophers, etc., two authors in particular have answered these questions very similarly. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher from the 18th century, argues in his essay “Of Liberty and Necessity” that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that they can both be accepted at the same time without being logically incorrect. Alike Hume, 20th century author Harry G. Frankfurt concludes in his essay “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” that the two major concepts are compatible. These two authors are among the most famous of Compatibilists (hence the fact that they believe free will and determinism are compatible ideas) in philosophical history. The question that then arises in the realm of compatibilism particularly, is one dealing with moral responsibility: If our paths in life are not totally pre-determined, and we have the ability to make decisions willingly (using free will), then how do we deem an individual morally responsible for a given decision? Frankfurt reaches the conclusion that we are held morally responsible regardless of

First, we must touch on causal determinism or as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it, “the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.” In simpler form, determinism can be explained as a chain of events; all events that take place relate back to and are

The question of free will has been a never ending discussion by philosophers and ordinary everyday people for decades. In this paper I will be analyzing the case of Ethan couch, a 16 year old boy accused of manslaughter under the influence of alcohol, from the three different viewpoints of free will; a hard determinist, a compatibilist and a libertarian. Then I will discuss which view I agree best with under the specific conditions of this case.

If determinism exist, can free will exist as well? According to determinism, everything is already set up to occur by a past event. This means that there is only one possible future based on the causes beforehand. So, by the laws of nature and our free will, there is a deep connection of understanding. If determinism exist that would mean the past and future are unavoidable. Thus, not giving a choice to be made by free will. Every cause that happens will have an effect and that is not a choice made by free will if everything is already

A philosophy professor at Reading University, Galen Strawson develops the idea of the “Basic Argument”; which states that for one to be truly morally responsible (absolutely responsible for their own actions), they need to be the cause of themselves (causa sui). However, one can’t be the cause of themselves, since they would have to be responsible for the way they are; thus, no one is truly morally responsible, and doesn’t deserve praise or punishment for their actions. Considering the compatibilist believe that whether one is truly morally responsible has no real implications in the world, Strawson refutes this by stating it has significance in the justice system (death penalty). All in all, Strawson’s Basic Argument reveals the idea that since there is no

Determinism (as defined by Webster) is “A doctrine that acts of the will, natural events, or social changes are determined by preceding events or natural causes”. Likely, the most radical definition of determinism would state that all events in the world are the result of a previous event, or a combination of previous events. Within the realm of the all encompassing radical determinism there are philosophies that are somewhat better thought out or backed by science. One example of this is Genetic Determinism. We know that people are in some way determined by their genes both physically and behaviorally, as the human DNA is applied. Two categories of genetic determinism are Genetic Fixity and Innate Capacity.

Determinism supporters claim that all consequences are inevitable since conditions are met and nothing else would occur by any chances. And determinism could influence and controlling everything in the universe with causal laws. According to determinism, we could make predictions about the occurrences of certain events or actions of human beings. There three types of determinism that I will discuss in the following, the Hard determinism, Soft determinism and Libertarianism.

We cannot be truly or ultimately morally responsible for our actions in either case”. Furthermore, Strawson reinforces his argument by saying “so if one is to be truly responsible for how one acts, one must be truly responsible for how one is, mentally speaking- at least in certain respects”. In other words, personality and mental state defines us. The outcome of events in our lives that challenge our moral duties give us a better understanding of who we are as humans. Also, the only time we wouldn't be acting like ourselves is if we aren't in a healthy mental state.

Mason Myers, the author argues between the views of a libertarian theist and soft determinist theist. According to the author, “we cannot consistently regard an omniscient and omnipotent creator to be free to blame for seemingly evil human choices unless we also maintain the radical agathistic theory that no human choice is evil in the sense that some alternative choice would have been better” (Myers, 1987). Myers does make some valid points because how is a person capable of making a choice if they do not know of any alternative. In the article, “Theodicy at the margins: New Trajectories for the problem of evil” by Mark Stephen Murray Scott, the author develops a new model which he refers to as “theodicy at the margins.” This view looks at very specific problems and attempts to find specific answers for these problems.

will and moral responsibility. I will argue, that Frankfurt makes an invalid implicit assumption that the

I thought that Baron d’Holbach summarized the determinists viewpoint when he said, “Man’s life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant. He is born without his own consent; his organization does in nowise depend upon himself; his ideas come to him involuntarily; his habits are in the power of who cause him to contract them; he is unceasingly modified by causes, whether visible or concealed, over which he has no control, which necessarily regulate his mode of existence, give the hue to his way of thinking, and determine his manner of acting” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 178).

     Before one can properly evaluate the entire debate that enshrouds the Free Will/Determinism, each term must have a meaning, but before we explore the meaning of each term, we must give a general definition. Determinism is, "Everything that happens is caused to happen. (Clifford Williams. "Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue" pg 3). This is the position that Daniel, a character in Williams’ dialogue, chooses to believe and defend. David Hume goes a little deeper and explains in his essay, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Liberty and Necessity," that determinism is this: "It is universally allowed, that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and

For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and