Need some help writing a paper for philosophy. I have to defend Libertarianism, Determinism or compatibilism. I am compatibilist so I just wanted to know other views/ objections to the matter. Thanks.
Well at least you're honest about why you started the thread. I would contribute, but first I'd like to know if this is supposed to be a research paper (annotated, etc) or just a subjective opinion kind of thing. Also, are these supposed to be your own opinions? Why are you asking for our opinions (as in, how will you use them), and what specifically are you looking for? Opinions on why we support each individual "ism" or just the "ism" you support? I don't want to help someone cheat. Thanks.
I don't want anybody to write any thing particularly to help me. I am just interested in knowing how others feel because I have to write a defense. So its easier for me to counter Just why you are ____ and your objections to ___.
If you can briefly define what those three terms mean in the context of "free will", I can give you my uneducated opinion.
Here, I just copied and pasted this. Free will''' is the purported ability of Agency (philosophy)|agents to make choices free from constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the [[metaphysics metaphysical constraint of determinism. The opposing positions within that debate are '' Libertarianism metaphysics metaphysical libertarianism', the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists; and ''hard determinism'', the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist. Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilism|incompatibilists . Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as ' compatibilism /compatibilists , and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias). so you have the libertarians- free will/ no determinism determinists- no free will/ everything determined compatibilists- freewill and determinism co existing.
Is there a name for: no free will, no determinism? That makes sense to me. All our choices are constrained by our environment and the chemistry behind our thought processes. At the same time I don't believe in a strict determinism, as there appears to be inherent randomness in nature.
That would be deterministic. If our actions are controlled by chemical processes and genetic predisposition it is predetermined and we have no control over anything. The no free will no determinism is actually referring to an extremely chaotic universe with no valid explanation for phenomena. I think that people are genetically predisposed to certain tendencies and have no control over where they are born and stuff like that, but apart from that the rest of their life is governed by free will.The reason I support compatibilism is because you can't take either extreme, both play a major part in human behavior. The major implications of either thought comes down to Moral Responsibility. If everything is predetermined than you regret and guilt don't exist. How can you regret something you had no control over to begin with? Not only that, any convicted fellon can claim that it was the biochemical processes that led him to ____. There is no moral responsibility. On the the other hand the libertarians don't account for the fact that peoples circmstances etc are already set and play a major role. The key concept behind their philosophy is that an act is not free unless you could have acted otherwise. Frankfurt brings a great example from the story of black and jones to prove this wrong. He is a compatibilist btw.
I'm not asking for anyone to write anything ! I just want to debate them and counter their objections so I can make a solid argument.
I think there exists, within all things, random processes which are fundamentally non-deterministic. So our actions can not be predetermined. They may be predictable with a very high degree of precision with sufficient information, but predetermined means it is in theory possible to know the future with 100% certainty. I don't believe that. What do you mean by "no valid explanation for phenomena?" As an analogy, I would not say that the laws that govern Newtonian physics are extremely chaotic. And yet, nature follows Newtonian physics to a remarkably high degree of precision, despite the fact that underlying processes at the atomic level exhibit random behavior. Does that mean there is some "free will" guiding large moving bodies, keeping them from acting in completely random ways? No. Nor is it the case that the actions of large moving bodies must be explained as purely deterministic. I would argue the same thing about the processes underlying our thoughts/decisions. It is mechanistic, like a spinning wheel or a projectile, though far, far more complex. At the same time, it isn't purely deterministic. That's only true if we define "moral responsibility" in terms of free will, such as "A person is morally responsible for the 'free choices' they make" (or something like that). Well, yes, then it is simply a truism that you need free will to have moral responsibility. But I would suggest a different, though less concise, definition. A person is morally responsible for the predictable consequences of his actions, understood relative to the predictable consequences of other actions that are externally available to him and that he is aware of. I say "externally available" because it may be that he is far less predisposed, internally, to choose those actions due to his biochemistry or whatever. But that should have no bearing on how he is judged. This definition still allows for the defense of mentally-challenged or insane defendants who did not have the ability to understand the consequences or the range of actions available to them.
Oh crap! Is that why he hasn't been posting lately? Do you know where he's being held? Is it a Turkish prison? Should we contact Amnesty International? Does the State Department know? I think all Clutchfans can rally to the cause and do anything it takes to free Will.
This isn't really a philosophical question. Whether free will exists is something you either know or don't know, not something you believe. Or at least the belief must be based on knowledge and evidence, not philosophical musings. Neuroscience is the place to go if you want answers to this question. Science tells us that we are nothing more than biochemical computers. Predicting human behavior is simply a matter of being able to understand how that computer works. Do you think there is a soul, a ghost in the machine, that makes choices for us? There is no evidence of that. As neuroscience advances, we can predict more aspects of human behavior and decision making. No one likes to believe that we are hard wired. It means we aren't responsible for our actions. "Don't blame me, I have a chemical imbalance, my brain is wired wrong." Here is a good essay on the subject by Tom Wolfe, on how neuroscience is shaking our fundamental philosophical beliefs to the core. Read the whole thing, it's perfect to get your brain thinking for the paper you are writing. Not that you have a say in the matter, your brain is hard wired to decide whether you will read it or not.
Science helps us to explain that which there is evidence for. Free will is philosophical in this sense -- it may be something which, ultimately, is not explainable through evidence we can observe or understand. Maybe there is an entire reality out there, and only a small part of it is accessible to us and our brains. It is possible, at least logically, that our consciousness or free will derives from this inaccessible realm.
[rquoter]This isn't really a philosophical question. Whether free will exists is something you either know or don't know, not something you believe. Or at least the belief must be based on knowledge and evidence, not philosophical musings.[/rquoter] In this context, what does philosophical musings mean other than speculation?
Here's a short discussion on free will that may be worth a listen: http://www.closertotruth.com/video-...at-is-Free-Will-Walter-Sinnott-Armstrong-/785 I agree with Sinnott-Armstrong's view on compatiblism, so I guess that's where I'd fall under. I believe in a special sort of free will that Sinnott-Armstrong describes. People are "free" if they can make choices without being coerced through outside forces and without ignorance. This, to me, is the condition that needs to be met if we're to ascribe moral responsibility. It doesn't really matter if the internal processes that govern the actual decision-making is deterministic or not.
well, there goes the justice system....... also, if I were hardwired as everyone supposedly is.... then something during my creation... in the coming together of my neurosystem... got incredibly ambitious.... it must've missed the biochemical memo of limitations in exploration and discovery, and common human conventions of beliefs, compromise with social and life aspirations/expectations... oh, that crazy, overzealous neural network of ours... it's never enough.... tsk...
