Is Van Inwagen’s compatibilism compatible with causal determinism?
Van Inwagen made a significant reputation for himself by bucking the trend among philosophers in most of the twentieth century to accept compatibilism, the idea that free will is compatible with a strict causal determinism. Indeed, van Inwagen has been given credit for rehabilitating the idea of incompatibilism in the last few decades.
What is Van Inwagen’s view of free will?
Van Inwagen recognizes that the philosophical discussions of free will are clouded by the use of vague terminology. He recommends some terms be avoided - ‘libertarianism’, ‘hard determinism’, and soft ‘determinism’ - and that terms be confined to ‘the free-will thesis’, ‘determinism’, ‘compatibilism’ and ‘incompatibilism.’ He says
Did Van Inwagen rehabilitate incompatibilism?
Indeed, van Inwagen has been given credit for rehabilitating the idea of incompatibilism in the last few decades. He explains that the old problem of whether we have free will or whether determinism is true is no longer being debated. In the first chapter of his landmark 1983 book, An Essay on Free Will, van Inwagen says:
What is Van Inwagen's two-part standard argument?
Van Inwagen developed his own terminology for the two-part standard argument, dividing it into the Consequence Argument and the Mind Argument. Van Inwagen defines determinism very simply. "Determinism is quite simply the thesis that the past determines a unique future." ( Essay on Free Will, p.2)
See more
Is Peter Van Inwagen a determinist?
Van Inwagen defines determinism very simply. “Determinism is quite simply the thesis that the past determines a unique future.” (p.
Why does Van Inwagen think free will is a mystery?
To recapitulate, van Inwagen thinks that (a) the Principle of Alternative Possibilities is either nonsensical or false, and that (b) moral responsibility nevertheless requires free will—that if anyone is morally responsible for anything, there must be something that person had a free choice about.
What do Incompatibilists believe about free will?
Incompatibilists hold that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive and, consequently, that we act freely (i.e., with free will) only if determinism is false. However, they disagree amongst themselves about what else, besides indeterminism, is required for free will.
What is Van Inwagen no choice principle?
The no choice principle If no one has about choice about whether P, and no one has any choice about whether, if P, then Q, then no one has any choice about whether Q No one has any choice about DINOSAUR. The laws of nature say that if DINOSAUR happens, then DECISION happens.
Is determinism a theory?
Determinism is a philosophical view where all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations.
Why is free will and determinism incompatible?
But free will requires the ability to do otherwise, and determinism is incompatible with this. Hence, the classical compatibilist account of free will is inadequate. Determinism is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility because determinism is incompatible with the ability to do otherwise.
Does Van Inwagen believe in free will?
According to van Inwagen, free will'' involves the ability to do otherwise, and determinism'' is nomic determinism, that is, the thesis that the past and the laws of nature determine a unique future. The problem goes as follows (or close enough): If nomic determinism is true, then there is no free will.
What is free will vs determinism?
The determinist approach proposes that all behavior has a cause and is thus predictable. Free will is an illusion, and our behavior is governed by internal or external forces over which we have no control.
Why is Incompatibilists freedom incompatible with determinism quizlet?
Determinism is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility because determinism is incompatible with the ability to do otherwise. What is the difference between compatibilism and incompatibilism?
What is the argument in support of determinism?
The mind does not so much experience cause as cause experience. Upon this basis the argument for determinism proceeds as follows: Like effects have like causes, the effect is like the cause, the effect is in fact the cause transformed, as the lightning is the effect of the preceding electrical conditions.
Why does Strawson think that we'd continue experiencing them even if determinism is true?
- Strawson thinks that if we learn that determinism is true, we would not be able to eradicate out reactive attitudes to other people. This is because reactive attitudes are just ones we have as a result of engaging in interpersonal relationships.
What is the difference between compatibilism and determinism?
Compatibilism is NOT a position that holds that humans have some free will. Compatibilism is determinism with a slight modification for the sake of appearances and for our language use. It is a position taken because of the perceived need to have some idea of accountability or responsibility for human behavior.
Is free will a mystery?
Free will: it's a normal biological property, not a gift or a mystery.
What is agent causation in philosophy?
Agent causation, or Agent causality, is an idea in philosophy which states that a being who is not an event—namely an agent—can cause events (particularly the agent's own actions). Agent causation contrasts with event causation, which occurs when an event causes another event.
What does Van Inwagen mean by determinism?
Van Inwagen defines determinism very simply. "Determinism is quite simply the thesis that the past determines a unique future." ( Essay on Free Will, p.2)
What did Van Inwagen believe?
Van Inwagen made a significant reputation for himself by bucking the trend among philosophers in most of the twentieth century to accept compatibilism, the idea that free will is compatible with a strict causal determinism.
What were the incompatibilists before Van Inwagen?
Before van Inwagen then, incompatibilists were libertarians, opposing the idea that free will is compatible with determinism.
How did Van Inwagen dramatize his understanding of the indeterministic brain events needed for agent causation?
Van Inwagen dramatized his understanding of the indeterministic brain events needed for agent causation by imagining God "replaying" a situation to create exactly the same circumstances and then arguing that decisions would reflect the indeterministic probabilities. Here he mistakenly assumes that possibilities translate directly into probabilities .
What is Van Inwagen's proposal?
It is a paper to appear in The Journal of Ethics entitled How to Think about the Problem of Free Will.
How many times does Alice lie in Van Inwagen's experiment?
Van Inwagen's results after 1000 experiments are approximately 500 times when Alice lies and 500 times when Alice tells the truth. Robert Kane is well aware of the problem that chance reduces moral responsibility, especially in his sense of Ultimate Responsibility (UR).
Who is Peter van Inwagen?
Peter van Inwagen. (1942-) Peter van Inwagen is an intellectual giant in two major fields of philosophy, the problem of free will and today's materialist analysis of metaphysics .
Who wrote the book The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism?
The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism Author(s): Peter Van Inwagen Reviewed work(s): Source: Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Mar., 1975), pp. 185-199 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4318929 . Accessed: 21/12/2012 17:59
What is the imagined case?
imagined case, the incompatibility of free will and determinism in general
Can you provide an analysis of a concept if you have no preanalytic convictions?
In fact, it would hardly be possible for one to provide an analysis of some concept if one had no preanalytic convictions about what state- ments involving that concept are analytic. For example, we do not have to have a satisfactory analysis of memory to know that 'No one can remember future events' is analytic.
Is free will determinism?
It has also been argued that free will entails determinism, and, being itself a consistent thesis, is a fortiori compatible with determinism. The argument, put briefly, is this. To say of some person on some particular occasion that he acted freely is obviously to say at least that he acted on that occasion. Suppose, however, that we see someone's arm rise and it later turns out that there was no cause whatsoever for his arm's rising. Surely we should have to say that he did not really raise his arm at all. Rather, his arm's rising was a mere chance happening, that, like a muscular twitch, had nothing to do with him, beyond the fact that it happened to in- volve a part of his body. A necessary condition for this person's really having raised his hand is that he caused his hand to rise. And surely 'he caused' means 'his character, desires, and beliefs caused'."
Is determinism a tautology?
And in that case, determinism would be a mere tautology, a thesis equally applicable to every conceivable state of affairs. This amounts to saying that the 'laws of physics' clause on our definition does some work: whether determinism is true depends in the character of the laws of physics.
Is PvI concerned with freedom of the will?
PvI interested in whether an ability to act otherwise than we in fact do is compatible with determinism. So, he’ s not specifically concerned with freedom of the will, as such.
Does PvI fail to show arguments?
The usual attempts to show arguments fail are to look at the details. PvI has done this to some extent by defending the various steps. However, other people reject such arguments as that just given for more general reasons.
What is Van Inwagen's argument?
van Inwagen’s argument that it would be impossible for someone who really did not believe in free will to decide what to do, based on the principle that it is impossible to try to decide whether to do x or y unless one believes that both x and y are possible for one to do. If this is correct, everyone believes in free will; the beliefs of philosophers who also deny free will are therefore inconsistent.
What does Van Inwagen think about free will?
Van Inwagen thinks that it does. He defends the view that free will is, despite the compatibilist’s best efforts, genuinely in conflict with the possibility of free will. He says:
What is the difference between determinist and indeterminist views of history?
The difference between determinist and indeterminist views of history. The distinction between physically possible futures and futures which have a physically possible connection to the actual world. The idea that quantum mechanical indeterminacy is compatible with many parts of the world being deterministic ‘for all intents and purposes.’
Is there only one future?
Van Inwagen notes that the fact that there is only one physically possible future if determinism is true has led many people to think that there is a conflict between free will and determinism. He imagines the compatibilist replying to this perceived incompatibility roughly as follows: we can say that a future is open to us just in case, were we to make some choice, that future would be realized. It can be true that many futures are open to us, in this sense, even if only one future has a physically possible connection to the actual state of the world. Does free will really require anything more than that many futures are open to us, in this sense of open?
