Free Will
What is the "will"?
internal causes of action, e.g., my own desires, my own decisions, my own intention
What is the definition of determinism?
The state of the world at any given time plus the laws of nature necessitate or guarantee a unique state of the world at the next time
What is a first-order desire? What is an example?
A desire to act
e.g.) desire to drink water, to attend UCF, to take a nap, to steal
What is the ability to do otherwise condition?
A person X's action/choice A is free only if the person was able to not do A
What are the two kinds of incompatibilism? Give definitions
Libertarian Incompatibilism: if determinism is true, we have no free will. We do have free will
Hard incompatibilism: If determinism is true, we have no free will. And, we don't have free will.
What is freedom of action according to Hobbes?
the ability to act on your will without external impediment
What is meant when we say "state of the world at t"
a complete list of every object that exists at t and the properties of those objects
What are second-order desires?
What are the two types of second-order desires? Use examples
A desire about a first-order desire
1) A desire to have a first-order desire (e.g., I want to have the desire to study)
2) Second-order volition: A desire for some first-order desire to be your will/cause you to act (e.g., I want my desire to study to be my will)
What is an untouchable fact? Give examples
A fact that no human being in history has ever had the power to change
e.g.) iron is magnetic, 2 + 2 =4, the laws of nature
What are self-forming actions?
kinds: moral duty vs self-interest, long-term vs short-term goals, fear vs ambition
According to Hobbes, if someone is locked inside a room and they want to leave, but they can't, so, they stay inside the room, is that person acting freely?
Why or why not?
No, because external impediments (the door being locked) are keeping them from acting on their will (leaving)
What is the "compatibility question"? What are the two proposed options?
If determinism is true, can there still be free will?
Two options:
Incompatibilitsm
Compatibilism
What is the JoJo Case?
What would the defender of the Deep Self view say about JoJo? Are they free and responsible?
What does Wolf say about the JoJo Case?
JoJo is the child of a dictator. He is severely indoctrinated and isolated from all other perspectives.
Deep Self view: Yes, JoJo is free and responsible
Wolf's view: No, JoJo is not free and responsible
What is the untouchability principle?
If p is an untouchable fact, and it's also an untouchable fact that if p, then q, then q is an untouchable fact
What is the harmful consequences objection?
accepting hard incompatibilism would have harmful consequences
Why? If nobody is responsible for what they do, then there is no right or wrong and punishment is never justified
According to Hobbes, if someone is mind-controlled by a mad scientist into having the desire to steal, and then they steal, is that person acting freely?
Why or why not?
Yes, because they are acting on their will
Consider the following statement:
"I can't know for certain what my life will look like in five years even if I pay close attention to all the present facts of my life, the world around me, and so on. Therefore, determinism is false"
What, if anything, is wrong with that statement?
Wrong because determinism does not state that we can know what will happen in the future.
Even if I had an almost perfect understanding of my own life, the state of the world includes the entire world, not just myself.
No human could ever have all the facts of the state of the world and an understanding of all the laws of nature. Determinism just claims that IF anything (a supercomputer or a god) did, then they would be able to predict the future
What part of his theory does Frankfurt exclusively associate with human persons?
What does this distinguish humans from?
Second-order volitions: A desire for some first-order desire to be your will
A person = a being with second-order volitions
A wanton = a being with first-order desires but no second-order volitions
Recount the Consequence Argument
C1) Assume determinism is true
C2) DINO is an untouchable fact
C3) It's an untouchable fact that if DINO, then I'm in in PHI class today
C4) Therefore, it's an untouchable fact that I'm in PHI class
C5) Therefore, if determinism is true, then it's an untouchable fact that I'm in PHI class today
What is the No Free Will Argument?
1) Either determinism is true or determinism is false
2) If determinism is true, then we have no free will
3) If determinism is false, then we have no free will
4) Therefore, we have no free will
Consider the following assertion:
"Hobbes thinks that free will is the ability to act on your will without impediment. If determinism is true, then I can't actually act according to my will because the outcome has already been determined before I was even around to make the decision. Therefore, Hobbes' idea of free will is incompatible with determinism"
What, if anything, is wrong with this reasoning?
Hobbes is a compatibilist
For Hobbes, it does not matter whether your desires were pre-determined or not, as long as you're able to act accordingly when you have these desires
Does it follow from determinism that every event is necessary?
Why or why not?
No,
An event is only necessary given the past and the laws of nature
If the past or the laws had been different, the following events would have been different
Describe the two addict cases.
What is the difference between the two addicts?
Which addict has free will?
The unwilling addict: has two first-order desires, one to take the drug, one to not take the drug. Has the second-order desire for the desire not to take the drug to be his will. Takes the drug anyway.
The willing addict: Same except he has the second-order desire for the desire to take the drug to be his will.
The willing addict has free will; unwilling addict does not
How does the consequences argument prove that incompatibilism is true?
If determinism is true, then it is an untouchable fact that you're in PHI class
if it's an untouchable fact, then you never had the power to change the fact that you're in PHI class, thus, you could not have done otherwise
if you could not have done otherwise, then you were not free
Explain Pereboom's response to the harmful consequences objection
What theory of justice does he oppose? What does he support instead?
We can have right or wrong without responsibility
Opposes "retributivism" theory or the idea that criminals deserve to be punished to their crimes
Instead, applies "contagion" theory, i.e., criminal punishment only prevents criminals from further harming society–contagious child analogy