In 1200-1500 words, please address the following prompt: Which theory of free will (hard determinist, compatibilist, libertarian) do you find most convincing? Or, like William James and the Existentia

Alyssa Wichern

Dr. Leib

PHI 2010- 020

17 March 2019

Compatibilist Theory of Free Will

There is no singularly accepted concept for free will that is uniformly recognized in the world because of the various philosophical works that have been directed to it. Some philosophers, however, define free will as the unique ability vested in a person to influence their conduct in a way that is essential for moral responsibility and as such, it is the power to act without the restriction of fate. Compatibilist feel that there has to be a causal connection between the actions that we take and free will. Compatibilists look to find common ground for the libertarians and the hard determinists. Therefore, they believe that there is a causal or deterministic connection between the will that we possess and the actions that we take in which we take the blame for the bad and credit for the good. According to compatibilists, this allows us to take responsibility for the choices we have made. They therefore hold the position that people are free when they act on as a result of their desires and they are not free when they are driven to do anything that they do not wish to do. The paper focusses on the arguments made by R. E. Hobart, W. T. Stace and David Hume of the harmonious existence of personal freedom and hard determinism.

Compatibilists define free acts as those whose immediate causes are psychological states in the person who is doing the actions, that is, the freedom of acting on the basis of one’s unlimited natural desires. Also, they define unfree acts as those whose immediate causes are states of affairs external to the person doing the deeds, that is, the freedom of acting on the basis of one’s unlimited natural desires because of imposed constraints. According to Stace, to preserve the reality of morality, there is a need to maintain the reality of personal responsibility and free will (Chaffee 4.3). Stace uses the examples of Mahatma Gandhi and a guy by the name Jones who go for a week without food. Stace deduces that Gandhi freely chooses to fast to achieve a more significant political goal and he makes this choice out of his own volition. Stace analyses that Gandhi could have made a different choice if he desired to do so. In Jones instance, he deduces that John gets compelled by the absence of food to his course of action. That there were no other alternatives available at Jones disposal.

Stace uses these examples to put across his point of the existence of free will as opposed to the standpoint of determinists that there is no free will. He claims the difference that exists between the actions that are not free and those that are free is that free actions are brought about by the personal history as well as motivations of an individual, while unfree actions are those brought by forces found outside of the individual (Chaffee 4.3). He uses the example of Gandhi who was driven by the desire to set India free and his devotion to human rights and the instance where John gets lost in the desert. Also, he takes the stand that free will exists and any philosopher who denies its existence is doing nonsense (Chaffee 4.3). Stace believes unfree acts are those that are caused by constraints that are imposed on the individual while free actions are as a result of unimpeded internal motivations of the individual.

W. T. Hobart analyzes the concept of freedom using the concept that all the actions that a human being takes follows the necessary causal law that connects wish-will-act (Chaffee 4.3). According to Hobart, free actions happen when this universal causal law is allowed to operate without interference: a person’s wish for something turns into willing, which translates to acting. Actions that are not free occur when there is interference in the necessary causal law by outside factors of restraint (Chaffee 4.3). He holds the position that a person has the power to produce a particular event and that event will follow. He gives the example of lifting the lamp that when enough upward pressure gets placed on a lamb, the lamb will rise. Also, he believes that the power depends on a law that if the first action happens then, the second will follow. According to Hobart, there exists a wish-will-act series in which the act follows as stated by the will, and the will follows as stated by the wish (Chaffee 4.3). Both internal constraints and external constraints guide the actions of Socrates. He believes that there is a law that connects preference and will and there is nothing to interfere with it.

According to Hobart, sets free choices and unfree choices apart is the nature of the causal factors. For instance, he refers to Gandhi’s story that the failure of Gandhi to eat was his own choice from the desire to influence the British government policies. That Gandhi was affected by his internal constraints not to eat until the policies of the British Government towards India gets changed. In addition to that, he presents that the failure of the individual in the desert to eat was as a result of his natural desires but as a result of his circumstances. Also, he holds the stand that when the unfree choices that were made by Gandhi and Socrates were those that are as a result of external factors (Chaffee 4.3). Like all other compatibilists, Hobart believes that when people make their choices to express their natural desires, the decisions made are free and the people are held responsible for those choices despite not being in conscious control of the attractions and impulses that caused the decisions.

The final philosopher who promotes this theory is David Hume. Hume believes that motives and desires are responsible for bringing out actions. He believes that the freedom that one possesses gets denied when one gets constrained by external factors (Chaffee 4.3). According to Hume, people’s actions are defined by their personal histories as well as contemporary motives and not the autonomous “will” of an individual that they could have acted differently (Chaffee 4.3). Peoples personal histories are what steers them to particular actions and could not have acted any differently. He believes that the actions that people take and the choices that people make have to happen as they happen. That the actions taken before could not have been any different and that the choice made would not be any different.

The compatibilist theory of free will looks to bring out the existence of the relationship that exists between the actions that we take and free will. There is a causal or deterministic connection between our will and the actions that we take in which we take the blame for the bad and credit for the good, a means by which we take responsibility for our actions. When people make their choices to express their natural desires, the choices made are free, and the people are held responsible for those choices despite not being in conscious control of the attractions and impulses that caused the choices. Compatibilists hold the view that unfree acts are those that are caused by constraints that are imposed on the individual while free choice is as a result of unimpeded internal motivations of the individual. There believe that people are driven by desires and impulses into particular courses of action is founded in this section. This theory is most convincing as people’s actions have a foundation. Some people actions are as a result of free will and can be controlled through choice while other choices are guided by external factors which define the course of action that one takes. The existence of free will is what drives people to take responsibility for their actions.

Work Cited

Chaffee, John. The philosopher's way: Thinking critically about profound ideas. 5 edition Pearson Education, Inc., 2016