What is the determinist claim?

Other Material

  1. Free Will
  2. What is the determinist claim?
  3. Be able to define ‘causal determinism’
  4. Explain the basic dilemma of free will (moral responsibility).
  5. What is the formal argument (i.e. what are the premises and conclusions of the argument for) for each of the following:
  6. Hard Determinism (Also on the Quiz)
  7. Libertarianism
  8. Soft Determinism
  9. Can you state an objection to each?
  10. How does Campbell think he proves free will? What does he mean by saying it is practically necessary that we believe in free will?
  11. In order to make the compatibilist argument, Ayer suggests that we must redefine freedom – but how? What is his argument to convince you we should redefine freedom?
  Other Material 1. Free Will - What is the determinist claim? The determinist claim posits that every event, including human actions, is determined by preceding events in accordance with the natural laws of the universe. This implies that if we had complete knowledge of all prior conditions, we could predict every action and outcome with certainty, suggesting that free will is an illusion since our choices are merely the result of preceding causes. - Be able to define ‘causal determinism’ Causal determinism is the philosophical doctrine asserting that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the outcome of preceding events in conjunction with the laws of nature. In essence, it argues that all actions are causally determined by prior states and conditions, leaving no room for randomness or free will. - Explain the basic dilemma of free will (moral responsibility). The basic dilemma of free will revolves around the question of moral responsibility: if our actions are determined by factors beyond our control (such as genetics, upbringing, and environmental influences), can we truly be held accountable for our choices? This dilemma creates a tension between the intuitiveness of personal agency and the implications of determinism, leading to questions about justice, punishment, and moral accountability. 2. Formal Arguments - Hard Determinism - Premises:1. Every event is causally determined by preceding events. 2. If determinism is true, then free will does not exist. 3. Human actions are events. - Conclusion: Therefore, free will does not exist. - Objection: Critics argue that hard determinism undermines moral responsibility and fails to account for the subjective experience of making choices. - Libertarianism - Premises:1. For moral responsibility to exist, individuals must have free will. 2. Free will requires the ability to make uncaused choices. 3. Individuals often experience a sense of agency in their decisions. - Conclusion: Therefore, free will exists, and individuals are morally responsible for their actions. - Objection: Opponents argue that uncaused choices lead to randomness and do not provide a coherent account of decision-making. - Soft Determinism (Compatibilism) - Premises:1. Determinism and free will are compatible. 2. Free will is defined as the ability to act according to one's desires and motivations without coercion. 3. Even if our desires are determined, we can still act freely if we are not externally constrained. - Conclusion: Therefore, individuals can have free will and be morally responsible within a deterministic framework. - Objection: Critics contend that redefining freedom in this way may overlook deeper issues of agency and autonomy. 3. How does Campbell think he proves free will? What does he mean by saying it is practically necessary that we believe in free will? Campbell argues that free will can be demonstrated through the necessity of agency in moral decision-making and social interactions. He suggests that believing in free will is practically necessary because our societal structures—such as law, ethics, and personal relationships—rely on the assumption that individuals can choose their actions. Without this belief, concepts like accountability and justice would become untenable, leading to a breakdown in social cohesion. 4. In order to make the compatibilist argument, Ayer suggests that we must redefine freedom – but how? What is his argument to convince you we should redefine freedom? A.J. Ayer proposes that freedom should be redefined from being an absence of causation to the capacity to act according to one's desires without external constraints or coercion. He argues that this redefinition aligns better with our experiences of making choices while acknowledging the influence of prior causes. Ayer contends that as long as individuals can act according to their internal motivations—regardless of those motivations being shaped by prior events—they are exercising genuine freedom, which preserves moral responsibility within a deterministic framework.

Sample Answer