Compatibilism: just because you have a scientific account of human behaviour it doesn't mean that humans aren't free.
Compatibilism - one argument for
'Free' doesn't mean 'uncaused' - it means 'unconstrained'. There are plenty of acts that are unconstrained and therefore free. Determinism does not undermine our belief in human freedom.
Three different examples of cases in ordinary life where we use the contrast between free and not free:
So the argument so far is that in ordinary life we use the word 'free' to mark a contrast between actions which are constrained in some way, and those that aren't. From the examples it is argued that 'free' doesn't mean 'uncaused'.
When we make the distinction between 'free' and 'constrained' in ordinary life we are not commenting on the causality or lack of causality behind the action.
What these examples show, it is said, is that when you go into it, 'free' doesn't mean 'uncaused'. It means 'unconstrained'. So determinism does not undermine our belief in human freedom.
Compatibilists are determinists, but they think they can believe that some acts can be free nonetheless.
'Free' is only meaningful if it is used to make a distinction. If 'free' meant 'uncaused', it would apply to nothing (if determinism is right). Therefore, 'free' cannot mean 'uncaused'.
Compatibilism misses the central point, which is whether, when a decision has been made, a different one could have been taken.
Compatibilism response: 'could' means would have if circumstances had been different. A determinist can use 'could' in this sense.
The anti-compatibilist reply: the question is whether we can choose categorically, not hypothetically.
Prepared
by VP | Revised 16:02:09 | Freewill and Determinism Home
page |