In Elliot Sober’s, Core Questions in Philosophy, he suggests a compatibilist theory known as the weather-vane theory... The weather-vane theory argues that an agent is has free will when their thought process is functioning correctly. The objection to the weather-vane theory argues that the theory is flawed by using a case of rational, self-sacrifice. I think that the objection to the weather-vane theory is lacking because it does not account for differences between a soldier’s actions and a kleptomaniac’s actions. To argue my point, I will first explain the weather-vane theory in detail. Second, I will explain the case of rational, self-sacrifice objection. Third, I will argue that the case of rational, self-sacrifice is lacking Fourth, I will argue an objection to my argument for the weather-vane objection. Finally, I will argue a rebuttal to the objection against my argument. The weather-van theory states that a free weather-vane and a stuck weather-vane are different. A free weather-vane functions correctly in that it can react to changes in the wind’s direction. The stuck weather-vane is malfunctioning because it cannot react to changes in the wind’s direction. Sober says that what the two weather-vanes do both have in common is that they are caused to point in a certain direction by something. Sober ultimately makes an analogy between the weather-vanes and a person’s ability to act freely. Before Sober’s analogy can be understood, his decision-making process must first be explained. A person’s decision-making process can be broken down into its parts. Sober thinks beliefs come from the belief-generating device that in turn, uses evidence to make a belief. Desires are harder to explain than beliefs because what the desire-... ... middle of paper ... ... comes with when someone is presented with a life and death situation. There is no evidence that soldiers practice jumping on grenades to overcome this fear or for practice. This would mean that the soldier’s action to jump on the grenade must rely on her beliefs and desires (and their generating devices). Because the soldier is rely on her beliefs and desires, the soldier’s decision-making process is functioning and the soldier’s action are voluntary. In conclusion, I think that the objection to the weather-vane theory is lacking because it had not considered beliefs and different types of desires. Ultimately, I think that if the evidence for beliefs and different types of desires is clarified then the weather-vane theory would seem to be more of the case. Lastly, I hope that my argument does may a plausible case of the compatibilism of the weather-vane theory.
There are many unpredictable and ungovernable accidents, coincidences, and chances that drive the universe and can ultimately affect the events of a person’s life. One of the main concepts surrounding David Guterson’s novel, Snow Falling on Cedars, is the power of free will vs. fate. The last sentence of the novel: “accident ruled every corner of the universe except the chambers of the human heart” explains the lack of control that humans have on the forces surrounding them compared to the control they have over their actions or decisions and the impact that it has. Snow Falling on Cedars looks closely at the effect free will and fate has through the murder trial that occurs post World War II in the story where a Japanese American, Kabuo Miyamoto, is charged with the murder of an American, Carl Heine. As the trial takes place, the story interconnects the characters one of who is Ishmael Chambers, a journalist who may be Kabuo’s only hope but struggles with the decision to do what’s right as he was left burned by Kabuo’s wife and his childhood love, Hatsue. The notion of chance and free will can be seen especially in the character of Ishmael who struggles against the effects of the war and Hatsue leaving him. And as a Japanese American during the war, Hatsue herself displays the power of free will in her self-acceptance and in creating a balance in her life. Apart from the portrayal of free will vs. chance in the development of the characters, certain events in the novel such as the case of Carl Heine’s death and the war itself exhibits similar themes. However, unlike Carl’s death, the war shows that there are instances where circumstance may be the result of human actions. In David Guterson’s Snow Falling on Cedars, the events tha...
Compatibilists like Peter van Inwagen believe that freedom can be present or absent in any situation. One of the famous Consequence Arguments on compatibilism is by Peter van Inwagen who says: “If determinism is true, then our acts are the consequences of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. But it is not up to us what went on before we were born, and neither is it up to us what the laws of nature are. Therefore, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us. 1.
“Are we free agents? Can we be responsible for what we do” (Strawson 225) This is the issue that Strawson brings to light in his essay. He begins to explain the notion of free will and responsibility in a compatibilist’s view. They believe that free will and determinism are compatible
Frankfurtean compatibilism provides a more refined model than Humean compatibilism. Humean compatibilism has denied the deterministic notion of freedom-the ability to have chosen otherwise. Hume then provides a new definition of freedom, as “a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will” (“Of Liberty and Necessity”, 23). In Hume’s view, as long as we act according to our desires and belief, we are exercising freedom of will and freedom of action. Frankfurt adds a further distinction within our desires, and concludes that our will is free if and only if we act on a first-order desire determined by our second-order desire. An agent’s will, defined by Frankfurt, is “the notion of an effective desire-one that moves (or will or would move) a ...
All in all, each view of the philosophy of free will and determinism has many propositions, objects and counter-objections. In this essay, I have shown the best propositions for Libertarianism, as well as one opposition for which I gave a counter-objection. Additionally, I have explained the Compatabalistic and Hard Deterministic views to which I gave objections. In the end, whether it is determinism or indeterminism, both are loaded with difficulties; however, I have provided the best explanation to free will and determinism and to an agent being morally responsible.
Free will is the ability for a person to make their own decisions without the constraints of necessity and fate, in other words, their actions are not determined. Determinism is the view that the initial conditions of the universe and all possible worlds are the same, including the laws of nature, causing all events to play out the same. Events are determined by the initial conditions. Two prominent positions advocated concerning the relation between free will and determinism are compatibilism and incompatibilism. In this essay I shall argue that compatibilism is true. Firstly, I shall explain what compatibilism is and consider possible objections and responses to the theory. I shall then examine incompatibilism and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and argue that compatibilism is a stronger argument and, as a result, show why it is also true.
...on between the two. Here, yes an agent will be free to make a decision,for example, to go outdoors or not to but the action can be limited or hindered by some factor such as a heavy downpour. Nonetheless, some argue that a free will is a prerequisite for a free action (compatibilists); depending on how the choice of the agent will turn out after selecting one of the preferred choices. On the other hand, another group argue that free will and action are incompatible (incompatibilists).
Neither soft determinism nor hard determinism successfully reconciles freedom and determinism. Soft determinism fails as it presents a limited type freedom, and it can be argued that the inner state of the agent is causally determined. Hard determinism presents a causally sound argument, whilst ignoring the moral bases of our society. Due to the failure of these theories to harmonize the data, the metaphysical problem of freedom and determinism persists.
Singer presents that one’s attitude to the unavoidable creates free will. The conscious choice to not be influenced by the inexplicable of life and maintain a positive outlook give one the necessary choice for free will to exist. Free will, he argues, is largely a matter of attitude. Though Gimpel’s outlook does depend on a strong faith, with it, most of the things that are outside of Gimpel’s control become insignificant. He cannot control his wife’s infidelity but with his outlook, such things don’t matter. At every step, one is able to make the choice to either let the external forces influence your behavior and feeling or consciously know that such forces are just a part of life and continue with your
agent do what it pleased; the soft determinists simply ignore the question of whether the agent was in control of the sources that caused the actions. Holmstrom’s theory was that “just because some causes of desires and beliefs, such as brainwashing, make actions resulting from them unfree, it does not follow that any cause of desires and beliefs has the same implications for the freedom of actions resulting from them.” (Abel, 321)
PURPOSE: To persuade my audience NOT to drink and drive Every person is accountable for his or her own “right to drink”. Failure to treat this or any “right” responsibly has consequences. The person’s “right” can and should be taken away when the failure to act responsibly endangers others.
In Roderick Chisholm’s essay Human Freedom and the Self he makes the reader aware of an interesting paradox which is not normally associated with the theory of free will. Chisholm outlines the metaphysical problem of human freedom as the fact that we claim human beings to be the responsible agents in their lives yet this directly opposes both the deterministic (that every action was caused by a previous action) and the indeterministic (that every act is not caused by anything in particular) view of human action. To hold the theory that humans are the responsible agents in regards to their actions is to discredit hundreds of years of philosophical intuition and insight.
Before I begin it is pertinent to note the disparate positions on the problem of human freedom. In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance which is contiguous with the doctrine of incompatibility. Libertarians believe in free will and recognize that freedom and determinism are incompatible. The determinist also follow the doctrine of incompatibility, and according to Chisholm's formulation, their view is that every event involved in an act is caused by some other event. Since they adhere to this type of causality, they believe that all actions are consequential and that freedom of the will is illusory. Compatiblist deny the conflict between free will and determinism. A.J. Ayer makes a compatibilist argument in "Freedom and Necessity".
“Man is the decider of his own fate.” Pulling one’s self up by one’s boot straps is a phrase that evolved from the concept that a person can choose and those choices are the greatest factor in what determines the outcome of that person’s life. And to a great extent this is true, but like pure determinism, pure free will does not consider all the possibilities of causation. For example, a man is an alcoholic. It is too simple to say that he is an alcoholic because he chooses not to quit drinking. Perhaps his father and grandfather were both drunks, or he drinks because his significate other drinks. Maybe he drinks as self-medication for a psychological disorder because the alcohol is cheaper than the actual meds. Biological, social, psychological, or even economic factors could be having an effect on his addiction. Neither free will nor determinism is useful to use in their purest forms, because at these polar positions neither theory can account for the fact that both theories have an effect on one’s
In the debate regarding liberty (i.e. free-will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism), Hume places himself firmly in the compatibilist camp by arguing that both notions can be reconciled. Though some of the arguments he presents in the Enquiry are unconvincing, Hume nonetheless still contributes to compatibilism by defining free-will and determinism in such a way as to avoid the logic of the incompatibilist position.