Chaffee, 3e Chapter 4.pptx

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.


VIEWS OF FREE WILL (1)

Hard Determinism All events and human actions are brought about by previous events in

accordance with universal causal laws. Human freedom is an illusion.

Compatibilism All events and human actions are brought about by previous events in

accordance with universal laws. Human actions are free if they are the result of internal motivations, not

the product of external influences or constraints.


VIEWS OF FREE WILL (2)

Indeterminism and Libertarianism At least some human actions are not determined by previous events in

accordance with universal causal laws. Indeterminist: Human freedom is possible because some actions may be

random. Libertarian: Human freedom is possible because people are able to make

genuinely free choices by exercising their free will.


BARON d’HOLBACHHard Determinism

“[The human being] always acts according to necessary laws from which he has no means of emancipating himself.”


READING CRITICALLYEvaluating Compatibilism (1)

Even though W. T. Stace believes that all events are causally determined, he also believes that if free will did not exist, “All moral precepts would in such case be meaningless.” Do you agree with his conclusion? Stace then goes on to argue that as long as an action is not compelled by an outside force, the action is free, even though it is causally determined by previous events beyond the person’s control. Does his definition of “free choice” as “uncompelled” agree with your own sense of free choice? Why or why not?



D’Holbach believes that when Socrates refused to escape from prison, and Gandhi refused to eat, both individuals were not making free choices because they were being compelled by internal impulses that were causing their actions. Stace and the other compatibilists, on the other hand, believe that even though their actions may have been causally determined by their personal histories, the actions were nevertheless freely chosen because they were not being compelled by external forces. Which perspective do you believe is more likely to be accurate: the hard determinist’s or the compatibilist’s? Why? If instead of saying their actions were “caused” we say that Socrates and Gandhi had “reasons” for actions they took, does that change your perspective? Why?



According to Moritz Schlick, actions that are the result of “internal constraints,” as well as those compelled by “external constraints,” are unfree because they do not express the “unimpeded rational desires” of the person acting. Do you agree with his analysis? If a person is emotionally disturbed, should we consider his actions free or unfree? Why or why not?

Are there times in your life when you feel that you are in the grip of internal constraints—obsessions, compulsions, neuroses, depressions—that you cannot consciously control despite your best efforts to choose otherwise? If so, would you say that your actions in these situations are free or unfree? Why or why not?



Hard determinists like d’Holbach define determinism as meaning that “all human actions are caused by previous events,” and that as a result free will is an illusion that does not exist. A compatibilist like Daniel Dennett defines determinism as meaning “there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future” and as a result free will is not an illusion, it is real. Is there a meaningful difference in these two somewhat different definitions of “determinism”? Might one’s definition of determinism influence whether they believe free will is real or an illusion? Why or why not?


WILLIAM JAMESThe Will to Believe

“Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds, for to say, under such circumstances, ‘Do not decide, but leave the question open,’ is itself a passional decision—just like deciding yes or no—and attended with the same risk of losing the truth.”


JEAN-PAUL SARTREExistentialism is a Humanism

“When we say man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean that in making this choice he also chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as he ought to be.”


READING CRITICALLYAnalyzing Jean Grimshaw on Autonomy (1)

Why does Grimshaw consider Aristotle’s definition of “autonomy” to be inadequate from a feminist perspective?

Grimshaw poses the question: “Are there desires (or intentions) which are not ‘autonomous,’ which do not originate from ‘within’ the self, which are not authentic, not really ‘one’s own’?” How does this question relate to the following observation from Erich Fromm?

A great number of our decisions are not really our own but are suggested to us from the outside; we have succeeded in persuading ourselves that it is we who have made the decision, whereas we have actually conformed with expectations of others, driven by the fear of isolation and by more direct threats to our life, freedom, and comfort.


READING CRITICALLYAnalyzing Jean Grimshaw on Autonomy (2)

Grimshaw observes that “Ibsen’s Peer Gynt compared his quest for identity to the process of peeling layers off an onion; but after shedding all of the ‘false selves,’ he found that there was nothing inside, no ‘core’.” In contrast, the authors referred to by Grimshaw all believe that there is an “authentic female Spirit-Self” at the core of each woman, and that women can discover their “core” by freeing themselves from social and psychological oppression. Do you agree with their conviction regarding the existence of an authentic core self? Do you think this same argument can be extended to include people in general, including men? Why or why not?

Chaffee, 3e Chapter 4.pptx

Documents

universal

rights reserved

hard determinists

human freedom

previous events

human actions

causally determined

free choice