Incompatibilism V. Compatibilism free essay sample

There are two prevailing incompatibilist views concerning free will, hard Determinism or Libertarianism. The former asserts that if determinism is true, then free will is nonexistent and humans are essentially robots following a path determined for us from our past and natural laws. The latter denies that determinism is true and thus appears to introduce randomness as an explanation to account for free will. Compatibilists claim that free will and determinism can coexist. For the scope of this paper I will consider the three prevailing arguments for the existence of free will or lack thereof and argue that a compatibilist view plausible view for the existence of free will. First I will attempt to show that determinism and free will can coexist, thus rejecting the Hard Determinism argument. Next I will claim that Libertarianism does not effectively rule out determinism, by focusing on the Quantum Mechanics response. Finally I will attempt to point out a relationship between responsibility and compatibilism. We will write a custom essay sample on Incompatibilism V. Compatibilism or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Determinism and Compatibilism The thesis of causal determinism states that every event has a cause and that human, an event, is no exception to the rule. Thoroughly put, if we know all of the physical facts and causal laws about a situation, we can determine what will occur next. Meaning that beliefs and actions cause our actions, and our past causes our beliefs and desires (i. e. parents/grandparents). The Hard Determinist argument, which flows from the thesis of causal determination, states the following : 1)Everything we do is caused by forces over which we have no control. 2)If our actions are causes by forces which we have no control, we do not act freely. )Therefore, we never act freely. The Hard Determinist argument appears to be in conflict with whether we act freely rather than â€Å"free will† or our ability to make choices. Using a thought experiment I will attempt to explain the different between acting freely and free will. Recent studies show that alcoholism is a multifaceted disorder caused by a set of genes, which increase one’s predisposition to becoming an alcoholic, and environmental factors . James is a College Park student that attends The Thirsty Turtle daily because he enjoys the taste of alcohol and the sensation of being drunk. It definitely seems that James is free in choosing to drink every day, but his decision to drink is caused be previous factors. James’ parents were alcoholics who drank freely in front of James when he was younger, thus in addition to contributing to his genetic predisposition; his parents provided an alcohol promoting environment. One night while drinking, James and Billy leave the bar extremely intoxicated. Neither is fit to drive, but James takes the wheel and is eventually involved in a fatal accident which kills his friend Billy. James falls into depression after Billy’s death, holds a gun to his head, and pulls the trigger. The important question is whether James acted freely? One can agree that James committed suicide of his own â€Å"free will† or choice but, from determinism one can say that James did not act freely. If we look back at Billy’s infinite causal time line, it becomes apparent that James did not act freely: He was the son of alcoholics and raised in an alcoholic environment, his grandfather was an alcoholic, and his ancestor from Columbus’ discovery, a Native American, became an alcoholic after the pilgrims introduced him to alcohol. Defining â€Å"free will† as one’s ability to choose is not in conflict with determinism. Determinism still prevails because, as with the example with James, one does not act freely due to their predetermined causes of his alcoholism. So far, I have attempted to show that free will, under the definition stated above, and determinism can coexist. Compatibilism provides a better account of free will compared to Hard Determinism because it shows that free will can exist and thus illustrates that Hard Determinism is currently incorrect because it does not account for free will. Libertarianism – Is Randomness and Answer? Whereas compatibilism rejects the second premise of the Hard Determinist argument, Libertarianism rejects the first premise – the idea that determinism exists insofar as it applies to human beings. There are three general libertarian responses that attempt to reject determinism: experience/introspection, accountability, and quantum theory. For the sake of this paper, I will cover what appears to be the most compelling response, quantum theory. â€Å"According to quantum mechanics, a cornerstone of present-day physics, the rules that govern the behavior of subatomic articles are irreducibly probabilistic. † For example, if one were to shoot a photon beam through an X-ray film according to quantum mechanics, at best, we can only determine the probability of a singular photon’s ability to penetrate the film, but not which particular photon makes it through . Quantum theory introduces randomness into the universe, but does the random motion of subatomic particles disprove determinism and allow us to drop the notion of determinism for every fiber of the universe? I don’t believe so. As Rachels would say, Randomness and freedom are completely different. My problem with quantum mechanics is that it does not rule out determinism. Take the following example; we launch a projectile within a vacuum (no air resistance). We know, from Newtonian Physics, the path the projectile will take, the velocity at the top of its flight, and the time of its flight. These variables are constantly tested and proven in physics labs, and the event is causally determined in the sense that we can trace gravity (the main effect on projectile motion) back to the formation of the universe and earth. Since we can determine projectile motion I do not see how from quantum mechanics, it follows that determinism does not exist. Responsibility under Compatibilism Determining whether we are responsible for an action depends on whether the action is deserves blame or praise. Free will is a necessary component of responsibility, if we assert that free will does not exists, as with the Hard Determinist argument, then responsibility would be pointless since one cannot choose an action. James Rachels provides an account of responsibility based on three conditions : 1. You must have done the act in question 2. The act must in some sense have been wrong 3. You must have no excuse having done the act. *Viable excuses: mistakes, accidents, coercion, ignorance and insanity. The opposite applies for praiseworthiness, but excuses are replaces with conditions analogous to excuses. So what does this mean for compatibilism? Since we do have free will according compatibilism, we are responsible for our actions so long as these actions are praiseworthy or blameworthy under the Rachels account of responsibility. With this paper, I hope that I have attempted to explain that hard determinism’s flaw is that it does not account for free will. Libertarianism’s popular response, quantum mechanics, fails to debunk obviously determined events (projectile in a vacuum). Thus leaving compatibilism, with the revised definition of free will, as the best account for free will.