Free Will And Reposponsibility Flashcards
(14 cards)
Structure of the Essay
Philosophical Issue, Ethical implications, thesis statement
Position 1: Hard Determinism, implications (Galen Strawson), Laplace’s thought experiment, Benjamin Libet, limitations (quantum mechanics, Arthur eddington).
Position 2: Existentialism, impact on responsibility, Sartre, limitations to existentialism,
Position 3: Compatibilism, PAP, Frankfurt Cases
Compare and Contrast, explain why existentialism is more plausible — due to its implications on law and how it gives you power to turn your life around.
Philosophical Issue
Is there such thing as free will?
Thesis statement
I contend Jean-Paul Satre’s position that “existence precedes essence”and that humans are inherently free.
Hard Determinism
Human actions and choices are casually determined by forces and influences beyond themselves.
Laplace’s Thought experiment
“An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces… for such an intellect, nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before his eyes”.
Galen Strawson
The implications of hard determinism on free will, as he puts it in the basic argument: When one acts, one acts in the way one does so because of the way one is. So, to be truly morally responsible, one would have to be causa sui; however, nothing can be their own cause. Therefore, nothing can be truly morally responsible.
Quantum Mechanics
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle implies that it’s impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle precisely, suggesting fundamental randomness in the way our universe operates, hence it’s impossible to have a laplace’s demon.
Arthur Eddington
“It is impossible to trap modern physics into predicting anything with perfect determinism because it deals with probabilities from the outset”
Existentialism
The philosophical position which argues that the human condition is undetermined, we must provide our own values to live by, we are thrown into the world and find ourselves free to choose how to live.
Implications
Existentialism: Responsibility, since man writes his own essence, he has “absolute responsibility” for his own actions and is therefore “condemned to be free”.
Hard Determinism: Responsibility, We can’t truly be responsible for our actions (basic argument).
Compatibilism: We can still be held legally responsible for our actions despite the fact that everything is determined.
Satre
Existence precedes essence, we first of all exist, then we interact with the world — and define ourselves afterwards. Thus, there is no such thing as human nature, because the meaning of our lives is created rather than assigned. Man simply is. Man is nothing else but that which he makes himself. Man writes his own essence through the way in which he decides to live.
Dualistic mode of being:
1) Being in itself, mode of being that characterises inanimate objects and non-conscious entities. Lack of self awareness and complete absence of freedom. Being in itself simply exists, without any need for justification and explanation.
2) Being for itself, the mode of being that characterises conscious entities, being for itself is not self contained (there is no essence for a being for itself), but rather exists in relation to the world around it. It is defined by its relationship to other beings and things, and is constantly in the process of defining and re-defining itself (trying to find essence).
Negative implications of Satre
Lack of Structure, loss of meaning in life.
Compatibilism
Compatibilism is the philosophical view that free will and determinism are compatible, meaning that both can be true simultaneously. It argues that even if our actions are causally determined, we can still be considered free if we act in accordance with our own desires and intentions.
Harry Frankfurt and PAP
Harry Frankfurt is an American philosopher who argued against the Principle of alternate possibilities; which states that a person can only be held morally responsible if they could have done otherwise. In fact, he proposed the so called Frankfurt cases to undermine the PAP:
John is at a party. Little does he know, the room is locked from the outside, and no one can leave. But, is enjoying himself. He is eating, drinking, and talking with friends. He decided to stay.
Note that his decision to stay is a free one: It is what he wants to do, and nothing is preventing him from doing it. At the same time, however, he does not have the ability
to do otherwise. The only option available to him is to stay at the party. This example therefore undermines the PAP.
