Transcript Knowledge and Reality Lecture 6 Free Will

Second Lecture Phase
Free Will
Lecture 6
The issue, the Options
Choice
I think “Hmmm, should I do some work or go
to the pub?”
Either is open to me.
I try to decide what to do, to determine what I
will do.
It is up to me.
A
B
An open future….
Freedom… other crucial ideas go along with it.. Praise
blame, anger…
Could Have Done Otherwise
• The CHDO principle: that free will implies
that I CHDO. Sometimes called the
Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP)
• But …
Determinism
• The thesis that previous states of the world
fix what happens later, including what we
do. Many say that as a scientific principle
there is reason to believe this.
• So whether I raise my right or my left arm
was determined centuries before I was born.
• So, determinism means … that I could not
have done otherwise.
• So … we are not free…
Note on Determinism and Quantum Mechanics:
•
•
•
•
Determinism, as a doctrine about the physical world is not quite true, which
makes a complication since much of the debate for centuries has been cast in
terms of determinism. Quantum mechanics, so we are told, means that there is
chance at a minute sub-atomic level. How much of a difference does this
make?
A) Many say that although at the subatomic level, where a particle might have
an equal chance of spinning up or down, such probabilities are cancelled out at
the macro-level, at the level of the brain, so it makes no real difference to the
debate.
B) One could modify that general doctrine about the physical world to say that
the chances of events are entirely fixed by previous events and the laws of
physics.
C) It is not clear how randomess/chance in the world helps the existence of
free will (a compatibilism/soft determinist point) since a random event is not
an action, since it does mean that a person is responsible for it.
Compatibilism
• However, maybe we can be both free and
determined.
• How could this be?
• A. J. Ayer… argues that actions flow from
me, my character… ‘free’ contrasts with
‘constrained’… something outside me was
compelling me to do something.
• Contrast you moving your arm with
someone else moving it.
Options
• FW & not-Det
• Not FW & Det
• FW & Det
• Libertarianism
• Hard Determinism
• Soft determinism
Are FW & Det compatible?
Libertarianism and Hard determinism agree on
incompatibilism.
Soft determinism is compatibilist
A new debate!
Van Inwagen’s
Consequence Argument
• Initial conditions
Plus
• Laws of nature
• … Determine what we do.
• So, we could not have done otherwise.
• So, we are not free!
• (An anti-compatibilist argument)
Compatibilist replies…(1) ‘Can’?
• What about the CHDO principle?
• One idea: direct attention to the exact
meaning of ‘can’… or ‘would’.
• Perhaps all it means or implies is:
• If I had chosen differently then I would
have acted differently…
Yes
Laws of nature
plus initial
conditions
Choice
No
(2) Frankfurt (Harry)
• The neuro-surgeon example.
• Like two hit-men going to do a crime.
He argues that there are intuitive cases of
responsibility, such as these, where the
CHDO principle fails.
(3) Dennett (Dan)
• Also questions the CHDO principle.
• “Here I stand I can do no other” (Luther).
• So there are ways of questioning Van
Inwagen’s consequence argument.
• But if you want to defend it, and thus be an
incompatibilist (that is, either a libertarian
or a hard determinist) you must find replies
to these three objections to the argument.
• Next week … Problems with compatibilism