determinism

What is libertarianism?

free will is the view that we do have the power to make genuine choices. It is the view that free will

what is soft determinism?

This is the view that free will and determinism are compatible

What did Hume do?

Distinguished between internal and external causes (causes that are internal to a person- their beliefs, desires, intentions) and external causes (causes that are external to a person- someone forcing them to do something)

What did Hume notice?

that we only hold people responsible for actions that result from our internal causes

What did Hume define free will as?

being determined by your internal causes not external causes

What else doesnhe think?

this definition of free will nonetheless gives us the conception of moral responsibility we want

What did Kant call Hume’s compatibilism?

‘wretched subtefurge’ which humans are just like ‘clockwork’

What do compatibilists argue?

free will does not exist , however, yet they claim to have found a definition of free will that allows for ethics

What did John Locke argue?

against the idea that the feeling of free will is a reason to believe it exists, by showing how it could be an illusion

What analogy does Locke use?

a man locked in a room who wakes up, unaware that it is locked, and ‘chooses’ to stay in that room. He felt like he made a choice but in reality there was no such choice available to him

Who was Sartre and what was his argument

he was a libertarian. He claimed that there is no objective purpose, nor anything else determines our actions because ‘‘existence precedes essence’’, meaning humans exist before they have a defined purpose and so have to subjectively define their purpose for themselves

What argument is Sartre’s?

psychological. People cling to fabricated notions of objective purpose like religion or Aristotle’s final cause/telos

What is an argument against Sartre’s argument?

as it is psychological, he does provide metaphysical grounds for rejecting determinism and so is arguably committing genetic fallacey. The genetic fallacey is assuming that the way in which someone comes up with a theory is relevant to whether it is true or false

What is a counter-defense to this?

he could respond that this is a misunderstanding of his argument. His starting premises is that there is nothing in our experience which suggests that we have a telos or are determined. He is using a posteriori approach