Incompatibilism Essay Research Paper Dermott OFlanaganPhilosophy Paper

Incompatibilism Essay, Research Paper

Dermott O.Flanagan

Philosophy Paper 3

Incompatibilism: The Only Way to Go

Is man free. If everything is determined by antecedent conditions, how can we consider man.s actions to be free. Is the belief that everything is determined incompatible with the concept of freedom. If all actions are determined, how can one be held morally responsible. The three possible positions, which may be taken in regard to these question, libertarianism, compatibilism (soft determinism), incompatibilism (hard determinism) lead to very different notions of moral responsibility. It is my belief that the incompatibilist argument as described by Van Inwagen defeats the compatibilist.s notion of freedom. Incompatibilism is the most convincing of the three theories proposed regarding the relationship between free will and determinism.

Determinism is the idea that at any instant exactly one possible future exists. Determinism is a thesis about propositions, and by definition a proposition has a certain truth-value which we can express. The belief that I am walking has at its core the proposition that I am walking. In opposition to determinism, the indeterminist stases that not all events are the result of prior conditions, there is perhaps one tenth of one percent of our actions that can be truly spontaneous. This incompatibilist philosopher.s hold is enough to justify indeterminism. Libertarianism, in contrast, is the denial of the belief that all human actions are caused by an individual.s character. It holds that a free act is not an uncaused act as determinism believes it to be, but rather an act caused .by the self as distinct from the character of an individual.. (Campbell)

Free will is perhaps best defined as the possibility of being capable of doing more than one action. We say someone has free will if, when presented with two distinct paths, of which they can only choose one, they are equally capable of acting in either way. For example, a man is offered a drink and can drink the beverage, or alternatively can not drink the beverage, if we hold this to be true and the man is in situations similar to this on a regular basis we say he has .free will.. In contrast to determinism free will is a thesis about agents. I shall argue therefor that free will is incompatible with determinism.

Incompatibilist philosophers hold that because the world is determined we are incapable of having free will. Van Inwagen.s argument for determinism is still the most convincing of arguments in the debate of free will.

· P, all facts about universe before people were present.

· Neither I nor anyone else had any choice about control over P.

· If P then necessarily Q so only one possible future is conceivable.

· Necessarily Q must have come about and no one had any control over Q.

So incompatibilism holds that our voluntary actions are based on our character, thus we do not really have free will as our character is controlled by our past.

Incompatibilist philosophers easily defeat the idea of indeterminism. If John could be described as a calm, thoughtful, and a peaceful man but one night goes out has a few beers and gets in a fight, we might initially say that the tendency to fight is not a trait of his. All determinists agree that we need to have deeper analysis of John.s personality. There is perhaps something in his persona that leads him to this seemingly uncharacteristic action. Put simply determinist thinkers including incompatibilists maintain that just because we have not discovered the cause of a particular event does not mean it has no cause. In fact if we look back through history our knowledge of determined events increases as scientific knowledge increases. Therefor we have disproved the idea of indeterminism, as we cannot say an event has no cause, only that we have not found the cause of that particular event. It is always conceivable that under further inquiry we will reveal that an event was actually caused.

The libertarian argument is also a rather weak one when compared to incompatibilism. Campbell who is the foremost libertarian of the twentieth century claims that we are on occasion exercising free will. .Freedom exists only in those situations of moral temptation where the self decides to act in accordance with our concept of duty or to follow our inclinations.. He bases his concept of freedom in the distinction between man.s .self. and his character. Libertarians believe that our character determines our desires, but our character does not determine the decision itself when we must decide between following our inclinations or acting in accordance with our sense of duty (Campbell). This act of decision can oppose and transcend one.s formed character. Therefor character and the self are not identical. The determinist response to the libertarian distinction of character and .self. is rather simple. A man.s character is composed of all his beliefs, values, and attitudes. All mental processes, including the decision to change his character, are part of his character. In this sense the character encompasses the .self.. There is no reason for libertarianists to create a separate .self. to explain how we can have second order thinking about our decisions. The idea of libertarians finds no support or justification as it is can be easily explained w