Freedom, determinism, and compatibilism

Defense attorneys say:

Not responsible for what happened because what happened HAD TO happen (forced by circumstances)

Bodies do exactly what their brain makes them do based on:

prior brain states

sensory input

Deterministic world

Nothing happens without a cause -> each state of the universe causes a specific next state to follow

If determinism is true

what a person does it determined by their brain -> prior brain states -> even earlier brain states -> ... -> back to big bang

Compatibilist view

BOTH free will and determinism

Incompatibilist view

CAN'T have BOTH free will and determinism

Hard incompatibilist Determinism

There is no free will, everything is caused by prior states

Soft incompatibilist libertarians

There is only free will

Ancient argument that there's no free will

It must be true that:

Everything is caused by something OR some things are uncaused

If everything is caused, no action is free

If some actions are uncaused, the actions are not free by randomness

Either way, no action is free

Determinism punishment

get wrongdoers off the streets

set example to others

allowing us to feel revenge

Rehabilitating/reconditioning criminals

Libertarian punishment

We have a special power to do otherwise

Soft determinism

Compatibilism

Compatibilism freedom

not being externally compelled or constrained/doing what we want

Why does denying things have causes doesn't help free will argument?

If things have no cause, they happen for no reason (randomness), without our will

Why is determinism/randomness worrisome?

Our laws and judgments of moral responsibility have to do with being FORCED or COULD have done otherwise

Compatiblism

Everything is determined BUT acts are free if not externally compelled or coerced

Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP)

a person is morally responsible for what they do if they could have done otherwise

Everything does what it does because of (science & common sense)

a. prior particular conditions

b. laws of nature

Libertarianism says what about laws of nature/science

Human free will/our minds operate outside of the laws of nature

Justification for libertarianism

It FEELS like we have free choices, and we should trust our ordinary feelings and assumptions

Peter Van Inwagon

We can't make decisions unless there are different possibilities (each being possible to do)

BUT we do make decisions

SO there must be different possibilities (each being possible to do)

AND when we are deciding we can see that the other option is really open to us (and theres no reason to think it isnt)

Inwagon two possibilities for us to choose libertarianism

A. we somehow act freely without violating laws of nature

B. We somehow are wrong that we actually choose our future (and about how we think of morality)

Both are hard to explain but the second is much harder so its more reasonable to try the first

Backwards problem

If something causes our mental states, thats what makes us do X

If nothing causes our mental states, then we are randomly in them

Forwards problem

if our character decides what we do, we couldn't do other than what our minds make us

If it doesn't, then we can't do what we will

Compatibilism problems

A. Real freedom means being able to do others

B. Manipulation problem (someone else changes our wants)

Agent-causation libertarian theories

Humans are 'uncaused causers', making decisions without anything else making those decisions

problem: peoples minds randomly pop into various states of wanting this or that, unaffected by anything before

EMPIRICAL findings from neurology and psychology against libertarianism

By the time we consciously are aware of two choices, several milliseconds before your brain decided (illusion of choice)

Patty Hearst

robbing bank with a gun to her head wasn't free

joining the gang and robbing after WAS free

Harry Frankfurt

Stories against PAP:

Black is a neurosurgeon who implants a mechanism into Jone's brain (unknowingly to jones) that gives Black control of Jone's behavior (voting in this case). If Jones comes to a conclusion on his own then its free will, but if Black controls him then even if he technically has multiple options hes forced to pick one.

Govinda is addicted to a drug (unknowingly). He would take the drug either way (No PAP), but he is still making a free choice to take it.

Manipulation problem (against compatibilism)

Someone illicitly changes our wants. They DO want the things, but not considered free because he was forced to want.

Hierarchical Compatibilism

Freedom requires first and second order desires in harmony

First order: Desires to do X

Second order: Desire to be the person who desires to do X

Worries for Hierarchical Compatibilism

Hypnosis problem re-arises for second order desires

Programmed robots or people count as free

Is doing something that was determined centuries ago really free?

Libertarianism Free Will

PAP/Able to choose from multiple options/do otherwise

Three questions about free will

Whats actually happening when we make our choices

What kinds of choosing/deciding count as free will

What do these things say about moral and legal responsibility

Hard determinism may not be so bad

It doesn't have worst features people fear

- It's not true that X will happen no matter what (fatalism)

- Not a puppet, our OWN mental states makes us

- Same motivations

Nice features

- It's clear how a person causes things, shaping the future mental states and actions

- The future and past are always there (immortality?)

- Gives more compassion

- Improve legal system by asking if we are better of with person in prison

- ends excuse making