Compatibilism vs. Imcompatibilism: Is There Really Free Will

1027 Words3 Pages

Compatibilists and Incompatibilists debate determinism and free will. Determinism is the idea that our actions are determined by past events. In other words, in our present state we do not have control over our actions and they are pre-determined. Only one thing can happen given a certain condition and nothing else can occur. Determinism seems to pose a problem because it tests the possibility that we do not have free will or control over our actions because with certain conditions there can only be one possible outcome. Another problem it poses towards the idea of free will is that since there are infinite possibilities of what actions one takes, this means we do not have control over our actions according to determinism. Compatibilists say free will coexists with the idea of determinism and that they are compatible. They claim the possibility that there is true determinism and free will. Incompatibilists debate the opposite and say free will does not coexist with the idea of determinism and they are incompatible. The claim they address is that there is no possibility that there is true determinism and free will. Robert Kane analyzes both sides in his attempt to show the differences between each side and to draw possible conclusions to the question and existence of free will. The compatibilist and incompatiblists agree that there are other worlds where there is free will but disagree on the fact that determinism is true.

Compatibilism is the idea that there is a connection between ones free will and the actions we take. We are solely responsible for the actions we take. Compatibilists believe that we can be living in a pre determined life, but our free will goes unchanged. We all have free will in a pre-determined s...

... middle of paper ...

...make against compatibilists. The subject becomes very sloppy and seemingly endless to the point of no solid conclusions on free will and determinism.

In response to both sides I remain neutral and believe both sides are flawed in their argument's because even though incompatibilists bring a slightly stronger argument to the table there is also a lot of underlying confusion such as the Libertarian Dilemma. Compatibilits have a weak argument because they believe free will and determinism can co exist but I do not see how it is possible because they are conflicting ideas. How can free will exist in a pre determined society when we do not have a clue if we are part of a causal chain or physical chain? There are no real facts or conclusions on both sides. Either if you choose to be a compatiablist or incompatibilist one can get lost in the argument on either side.

More about Compatibilism vs. Imcompatibilism: Is There Really Free Will

Open Document