Argument For Incompatibilism By Peter Van Inwagen

In this paper I will defend W.T. Stace’s position of compatibilism in respect to the problem of free will, as presented in Religion and the Modern Mind. I will explain Stace’s position on how free will and casual determinism are compatible. I will consider the following two objections against Stace’s position of free will: compatibilism is too weak a notion of free will that it conflicts with determinism, and there is no real difference between free and constrained action.

Whether we have free will is widely controversial. The absence of a universal definition poses a primary problem to this question. In this essay, I shall base my argument on a set of three conditions for free will: 1) that the actor is unconstraint in his action, 2) the actor could have acted otherwise and 3) the actor must be ‘ultimately responsible’ (Kane, 2005: 121) for his action. After I have explained them, I shall apply these conditions to three scenarios that cover most, if not any, circumstances that occur when taking choices. The purpose of this essay is to show that if my conditions are true, none of the scenarios is based on free will and thus we do not have free will.

The subject of freewill and determinism has been a matter of intense debate in the philosophical community for ages with the topic of compatibilism and incompatibilism. This essay will be reviewing and critiquing the work of a very well-known philosopher Peter Van Inwagen and his article “An Argument For Incompatibilism” and what does he mean by freewill and determinism.

Many times I find myself sitting and wondering whether I am fully free or not. I wake up every single morning and do the same routine, which is eat breakfast, go to class or work, do homework, go to the gym, shower, and then go to bed. Does this truly mean I am free? There are a lot of questions that you can ask yourself while following a routine. Is this really the path I should have taken? Were my choices determined by external factors? Determinism is the thesis that an any instant there is only one physically possible future. Robert Blatchford and Walter Terence Stace, two philosophers, both agree that determinism is true, although they have two different views on whether this means that people are free or not. Blatchford believes that everything is predestined. Stace on the other hand, believes that a person chooses what they do because of free will. In this essay I am going to discuss both of the philosophers’ views more in depth and why I favor Stace’s view over Blatchford’s.

The arguments presented by D’Holbach and Hobart contain many of the same premises and opinions regarding the human mind, but nonetheless differ in their conclusion on whether we have free will. In this paper, I will explain how their individual interpretations of the meaning of free will resulted in having contrary arguments.

Although Pereboom claims to agnostic about the truth of determinism, he argues that we should admit there is neither human freedom nor moral responsibility and that we should learn to live without free will. Pereboom’s view of hard compatibilist is not only the case if determinism is true, he argues that it is equally the case if indeterminism is true. Pereboom states that neither provides the control needed for moral responsibility.

The first term relevant to this paper is determinism. (Hard) Determinism is the philosophical idea that every action and decision a

In the following paper I will talk about A.J. Ayer’s “Freedom and Necessity,” and I will explain the dilemma of determinism and Ayer’s compatibilist solution to it. I will explain some of the examples Ayer uses to explain the difference between cause and being constrained, and how both affect one’s free will. I will also discuss on why Ayer’s compatibilism solution to the dilemma is the best solution so far.

At the beginning of the article, Van Inwagen describes free will as a fork on the road and you have choices in front of you all you must do is make a choice on which path to choose. That very decision you make of which path to take is free will. Being able to choose between these two paths shows that you have free will to choose which path to go on however your decisions are limited because only two paths are being presented to you. Determinism is the theory that everything we do like choices that we make are completely determined by previously existing causes. I disagree with the notion that free will is incompatible with determinism. This notion is saying that free is not compatible with the fact that things happen for a reason. I disagree

The third view van Inwagen mentioned was indeterminism, which doesn’t accept the idea of determinism all together

When it comes to free will, the traditional compatibilist has a simple outlook on a subject that any average human being can grasp. On the outside, it may look confusing, but traditional compatibilism is simple once you get through the vocabulary and a few examples. In this essay, I will cover the traditional compatibilists’ analysis on free will, give an example of a counterexample to traditional compatibilism, and my thoughts on why or why not the counterexample is successful in rejecting the traditional compatibilist analysis of free will.

There are 3 basic views that can be taken on the view of determinism, (1) deny its reality, either because of the existence of free will or on independent grounds; (2) accept its reality but argue for its compatibility with free will; or (3) accept its reality and deny its compatibility with free will.In this paper I am going to be defending the view compatibilism, specifically W. T. Stace’s view of compatibilism.

In respect to the arguments of Ayer and Holbach, the dilemma of determinism and its compatibility with that of free will are found to be in question. Holbach makes a strong case for hard determinism in his System of Nature, in which he defines determinism to be a doctrine that everything and most importantly human actions are caused, and it follows that we are not free and therefore haven’t any moral responsibility in regard to our actions. For Ayer, a compatibilist believing that free will is compatible with determinism, it is the reconciliation and dissolution of the problem of determinism and moral responsibility with free willing that is argued. Ayer believes that

In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don’t have free will by addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third

Now when free will is presented in a discussion, there are many terms involved that have indefinite meanings. In this following essay, free will be defined as being “morally responsible for one's own actions” while God will be defined as “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” Determinism can be defined as the concept of every event or action being a consequence of a higher beings state of affairs and freedom can be defined as the ability to choose our own actions without restraint. The idea that will be argued is primarily in support of compatibilist views, which are people who believe there is a way that the existence of a deity can harmonize with the human free will. In another viewpoint, incompatibilist are people who believe