Knowt
Note
Studied by 34 peopleNoteStudied by 20 peopleNoteStudied by 13 peopleNoteStudied by 13 peopleNoteStudied by 10 peopleNoteStudied by 18952 people
Philosophy quiz 3 review
freedom= negative restraints removed for freedom/ positive= restraints removed for freedom
Life's outcomes are both out and in our control our environment does affect the outcomes, but by making the right decisions determinism can lead to positive positive outcomes (nature v nuture)
Free will (“libertarianism”/”voluntarism”) - some acts of the will do not have determining causes
Determinism - our actions are determined by natural causes and could not have been otherwise
Compatibilism - the belief that free will and determinism are compatible: they can both be true at the same time
Free will= basic idea decide to lift hand or not
Free will as uncaused (neuron snap to the next, lead to cause an effect/behavior leads to muscles, leads the hand lifts)
free will as uncoerced (no one has gun to their head)
free will= what you could have done otherwise
determinism actually argues that free will is impossible because every event or action is causally determined by preceding events in accordance with the laws of nature. This means that individuals do not have true freedom to choose their actions, as they are influenced by factors beyond their control.
Freedom of the will Shopenhauer
shopenahuer= idealist/ pessimist not determinist
We will seems necessary for society( feedback, and praise) and to for people to try to improve and be good
Self-consciousness seems to tell us we are free
Science seems to tell us, we are not free (neurons control our actions)
Freedom concept is negative absence of any hindrance and restraint equals manifest power equal positive restrain can be physical
Inanimate beings equal originate movements from their own will voluntarily free with no obstacles
Generally freedom seen as positive/ ability to act free as bird in the sky. Only the free are happy nation, free equals, govern by law given itself these laws of its own will equals physical freedom.
intellectual freedom equals voluntary plus involuntary with respect of thought
Moral freedom equals man without material obstacles equals restrained by motives, threats, promises, dangers, if absent would've expressed his will
Schopenhauer argued that free will is an illusion and that our actions are determined by our desires and external influences,
Summary of the issues:
Free will seems necessary for society and for people to try to improve and be good.
Self-consciousness seems to tell us we are free.
Science seems to tell us we are not free.
necessary vs contingent
necessary=1+1=2, determinism from science
contingent= color of the shirt you are wearing
Libet’s experiments “Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will”
Benjamin Libett participants hooked up to EEG to watch clock face with dot sweeping around it when participants felt urge to move a finger note dots position which recorded brain activity several hundred milliseconds before people expressed the conscious intent to move (readiness potential)/
EEG only looked at limited area of brain activity
brain instructed hand to move —> consciously chose to move hand —> hand moves
objections-
The notion of choice in these experiments are not representative
Still not 100% predictive
5. An action being determined by causes doesn’t violate free will as long as they are the “right sort” of causes.
Kathleen Vohs 2008 experiment
Social psychologist study how people behave when they are prompted to think determinism is true
Two passages= one suggesting behavior boils down to environmental/genetic factors not under person control, other article about what influences behavior
After reading these articles, participants math problems led to glitch, displaying answers to click away= those who read the answers were more likely to read about how genetic factors influence behavior
Denying free will equals provides ultimate excuse for behavior
Determinism makes people less moral, believing in free way more likely to be moral
As you start interpreting peoples behaviors in real life, impossible to uphold this idea of not having free will
Determinism versus Schopenhauer( pessimistic)
Physical freedom, absence of material hindrances to action
Moral freedom, absence of determination of actions by motives, but determines will motive
What motivates people= character, guilt, loyalty, expectations, genetics
Motives determine will morally right to thing to do leads to action
examples of motive, money, well-being Green marker leads to connection between green marker/ could I have decided to pick the blue marker equals decided by motive
Motive determine will choosing between train or city bike= if you feel sick or the train is fast, you will choose the train
Schopenhauer equals conscious of all motives, determining will lead the decision lead action
Schopenhauer “when it asserts, then always refers to the ability to act accordance with the will”
“Self-conscious affirms the freedom of action when the willing is pre-supposed but what is being inquired into is precisely the freedom of willing”\
Freedom of three step process
Motives are raid objects presented
Will violation bodily activation not self conscious between one and two motives do not equal will
Three action perform freedom between step two and three
Specific will equals in that specific moment could I have chosen a different option equals no according to Schopenhauer not free
If you could have chosen something some type of choosing btw the choices
Physical freedom equals straightforward/ moral freedom equals complex motives, influence the whale without being absolute constraints
Necessity as concept equals crucial to understanding freedom something is necessary if it follows a sufficient ground relationship between freedom and necessity freedom implies to absence of necessity
Empirical concept of freedom suggest that one is free when they can act according to the web lead to further inquiries about the nature of violation and whether it can be independent of prior causes
Liberum arbitrium- indifferent suggest that true freedom would mean being entirely independent of any cars difficult to conceive
Self-consciousness aware of one's own self distinct from once awareness of external objects
Freedom of the Will-solutions
Schopenhauer
Rationalist view of science: causes are grounds; grounds are sufficient
❖ denies the distinction between causation and constraint; the boundary is fuzzy
❖ freedom is destiny: a choice made outside of time: this is your character and your
whole life; every decision you make in time is determined.
Ayer
Ayer defines determinism as the view that every event, including human actions, is determined by preceding events in accordance with the laws of nature.
Freedom and Necessity
connection to morality:
punishments, praise, and rights only if ppl. responsible;
only responsible if free;
only free if could have done otherwise;
could only have done otherwise if uncaused
Determinism: Ayer defines determinism as the view that every event, including human actions, is determined by preceding events in accordance with the laws of nature.
Libertarianism vs. Compatibilism:
Libertarianism argues that free will is incompatible with determinism.
Compatibilism, which Ayer advocates, suggests that freedom can exist even within a deterministic framework.
introduces the idea of "conditional" statements, such as "If I want to do X, then I can do X," illustrating how desires inform our sense of freedom.
ex-"If I want to pass my exams, then I must study hard."
This is a conditional statement where the desire to pass exams ("If I want to pass my exams") is the antecedent, and the action necessary to achieve that goal ("then I must study hard") is the consequent. The statement implies that studying hard is necessary, provided that the goal of passing exams exists.
This type of conditional highlights a relationship between a goal (the desire to pass exams) and the means to achieve that goal (studying hard).
If individuals act freely (i.e., in accordance with their desires), they can be held morally accountable for their actions, even if those actions are determined
nuanced understanding of human behavior, acknowledging both the influence of determinism and the experience of freedom.
A.J. Ayer's "Freedom and Necessity" provides a compelling argument for compatibilism, suggesting that freedom can exist within a deterministic universe
“For he is anxious to show that men are capable of acting freely in order to infer that they can be morally responsible for what they do. But if it is a matter of pure chance that a man should act in one way rather than another, he may be free but he can hardly be responsible. And indeed when a man’s actions seem to us quite unpredictable, when, as we say, there is no knowing what he will do, we do not look upon him as a moral agent. We look upon him rather as a lunatic. (620)= scientific reason why something happens/ no cause= worse for freedom/ responsible for what you do
Action does not have a casual explanation (pure chance) = we would not call it free
not free will= no praise/blame/self-praise/ no responsibility for actions
actions being spontaneous= ordination of atom is the way it is= works for science but not humans/ denies that you can only be free if your actions are uncaused= free will= all actions caused
ayer= all actions are only responsible if you could have done otherwise/ cannot act otherwise as you do if you are constrained (compelled or forced) to do what you do
free will=absense of constraints not absence of causes=compatibilism
negative freedom=NOT compelled/not forced=free/ not think abt what do u have to do to be free /nothing thinking about what is true freedom
postivive freedom= acting according to characteristics = like teaching —> come to class= free / forced to limit political beleifs lose job= not free
not having cause=take away responsibility= haven’t decided to do something = no choice= not free will /not free (out of blue to do something/ Touretts not result of belief do not hold responsibility for blurting out something offensive = reflex
For it is not, I think, causality that freedom is to be contrasted with, but constraint… my action is causally determined it does not necessarily follow that I am constrained to do it: and this is equivalent to saying that it does not necessarily follow that I am not free.”= freedom comes from causality
Ayer= Maya is free to stay with sick mom = no one forced her to stay= being caused to do something=freedom
compatibilsim = Free = without being forced to do something (playing the piano)/ (blackmail)= not free/ negative consequence disrupts natural decision process= coercion
coercion= include social factors/ chemical imbalance/ drugs
Ayer+Hume= Parenting being told to each vegteables = coercision/ little kids=not free but needed to protect them
synopsis Ayer
● Ayer denies that you can only be free if your actions are uncaused. In fact, people can NOT be considered responsible agents if their actions are uncaused.
● Therefore “free will” must be the result of causes.
● But Ayer accepts that you are only responsible if you could have done otherwise. You are only “free” if you could have done otherwise.
● You cannot act otherwise that you do if you are constrained (other words are
compelled or forced) to do what you do.
● Therefore free will is the absence of constraints, not the absence of causes. This is compatibilism.
● Another way to put it: there is a “normal” causal chain leading from belief and desire to action given “our” mind and “our” personality; if this is not interfered with, then the result is “up to us”.
Freedom of the Will-solutions
Ayer
❖ Empiricist view of science: causes are constant conjunctions only, no force
❖ makes the distinction between causation and constraint
❖ freedom is negative: absence of constraint or disruption; action according to
healthy psychology (beliefs and desires)
Hume “of liberty and necessity”
compatibilism," allows for human freedom while maintaining the existence of causal determinism.
hume +ayer same ideology
Determinism holds that all events, including human actions, are the result of preceding causes, whereas libertarians argue that human beings are capable of free actions, independent of causal chains.
necessity as the principle that everything in nature follows uniform laws of cause and effect.
When one event occurs, it follows necessarily from previous events according to these laws.
However, Hume notes that this "necessity" is not something inherent in the objects or events themselves but is derived from the constant conjunction of events and the habit of our mind to expect one thing to follow another.
Example: We observe that fire consistently burns wood. From this constant conjunction of events (fire and burning), we infer a necessary connection, though this necessity is a product of the mind.
human actions. He argues that human behavior is similarly governed by causal laws. Just as natural events follow cause and effect, so too do human actions stem from motives, desires, and circumstances.
Example: If someone is hungry, they are more likely to seek food. Their behavior is determined by their internal state (hunger) and external conditions (availability of food).
is a salesman advertising to you effect your choice of buying/not buying= is it coercion?
Hume redefines liberty to mean not the ability to act independently of any cause, but rather the freedom to act according to one's desires, motives, and reasoning without external constraint or compulsion.
Negative Liberty: The absence of external obstacles or constraints. This is Hume’s conception of liberty—freedom to act as one wills, as long as nothing external is preventing one from doing so.
eals with the complex problem of free will (liberty) and determinism (necessity). Hume seeks to reconcile the apparent conflict between these two concepts by arguing that they are not, in fact, incompatible(coexist/ are compatible). His approach, known as "compatibilism," allows for human freedom while maintaining the existence of causal determinism. Here's a detailed breakdown of the key ideas and arguments Hume presents:
1. The Problem: Free Will vs. Determinism
Hume begins by stating that the dispute over liberty and necessity is as old as philosophy itself. The central problem revolves around whether human actions are determined by causes (necessity) or whether individuals can act freely (liberty). Determinism holds that all events, including human actions, are the result of preceding causes, whereas libertarians argue that human beings are capable of free actions, independent of causal chains.
2. Hume’s Definition of Necessity
Hume defines necessity as the principle that everything in nature follows uniform laws of cause and effect. When one event occurs, it follows necessarily from previous events according to these laws. However, Hume notes that this "necessity" is not something inherent in the objects or events themselves but is derived from the constant conjunction of events and the habit of our mind to expect one thing to follow another.
Example: We observe that fire consistently burns wood. From this constant conjunction of events (fire and burning), we infer a necessary connection, though this necessity is a product of the mind.
3. Application to Human Actions
Hume extends this reasoning to human actions. He argues that human behavior is similarly governed by causal laws. Just as natural events follow cause and effect, so too do human actions stem from motives, desires, and circumstances.
Example: If someone is hungry, they are more likely to seek food. Their behavior is determined by their internal state (hunger) and external conditions (availability of food).
is a salesman advertising to you effect your choice of buying/not buying= is it coercion?
4. The Meaning of Liberty (Free Will)
Hume redefines liberty to mean not the ability to act independently of any cause, but rather the freedom to act according to one's desires, motives, and reasoning without external constraint or compulsion.
Negative Liberty: The absence of external obstacles or constraints. This is Hume’s conception of liberty—freedom to act as one wills, as long as nothing external is preventing one from doing so.
Compatibilism: Hume’s central claim is that liberty (the ability to act according to one’s will) and necessity (the existence of causal determinism) are compatible. Being determined by causes does not we negate the freedom to act, as long as the person is not being coerced or forced by external factors.
necessity" is often understood as something contrary to freedom, but Hume suggests that this is a confusion. Properly understood, necessity merely refers to the regularity and predictability of actions based on causes. Similarly, liberty is not the absence of necessity but the freedom from external constraints.
Hume’s View on Moral Responsibility: People can be judged morally based on their character, intentions, and actions. Since human behavior follows consistent patterns based on motives, we can assign blame or praise based on those motives, which reflect the person's character.
rationalist view of causation
Rationalist epistemology: All knowledge comes from necessary and a priori truth
Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): the necessary and a priori truth that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground.
Meaning of “sufficient”: if X is sufficient for Y, X is all you need, if you have X, you can guarantee Y, If X then Y.
Therefore all our actions and volitions (Y) have metaphysically sufficient grounds that determine their existence (X)
Example:
If someone argues that your decision to go for a run today (Y) is fully determined by your desire for fitness, the time available, and the nice weather (X), then all of those conditions together (X) form metaphysically sufficient grounds. If those conditions exist, then your action of going for a run (Y) necessarily follows.
empiricist view of causation
Empiricist epistemology: All knowledge comes from the experience
we have no experience of a force or a metaphysically sufficient anything
we do experience constant (repeated) conjunctions of X "sufficient grounds" cause the actions or volitions (Y)
this repeated experience leads us to a feeling of expectation of Y when we experience X
Therefore in causation there is pattern but no compelling force.
"sufficient grounds" (X) are what cause the actions or volitions (Y)
example- Sufficient Grounds (X): In this case, hunger and food availability are all you need to guarantee that eating will occur (Y). The presence of X guarantees the outcome Y.
Constant Conjunction: Every time you are hungry and there is food, you eat, showing a repeated pattern (constant conjunction) of X causing Y.
REALIST
science- based on facts/ proven
rationalist empistemology= all knowledge comes from necessary and a priori truth = REASONING
NECESSARY=CANNOT BE CHANGED 2+2=4 NEVER CONTINGENT = DON’T HAVE TO LOOK FOR IT AND PUT 2 ITEMS WITH 2 OTHER ITEMS/
A PRIORI = YOU DON’T NEEED ANY PRIOR EXPERIENCE= JUST KNOW IT BY THINKING JUST LOOK = LOOK TO SEE IF THERE IS TRAFFIC=GO LOOK = do not know off top of your head
Principle of sufficient reasoning (PSR)= necessary and a priori truth that everything must haVE A REASON, CAUSE, OR Sufficient GROUNDS FOR IT (explains why it exists why it comes to exist)
AYER V HUME
1. Concept of Causality
Hume: Hume’s view of causality is empiricist and grounded in human experience. He argues that we do not observe causation directly, but rather infer it from the constant conjunction of events. That is, we see event X followed by event Y repeatedly, and we come to expect Y to follow X. Causation, for Hume, is more about the patterns of observation than about some inherent metaphysical connection between events.
Key Idea: Causality is based on habitual associations in the mind, not a necessary force in nature.
Ayer: Ayer, while building on Hume's ideas, focuses more explicitly on scientific determinism. He accepts the idea that every event, including human actions, is determined by preceding causes according to the laws of nature, but does not delve deeply into how we come to perceive causality (as Hume does). For Ayer, the focus is on reconciling this deterministic view with a practical understanding of moral responsibility and freedom.
Key Idea: Causality is a part of natural laws that govern all events, but freedom can exist within this framework if actions are uncoerced.
2. Definition of Freedom
Hume: Hume defines freedom (or liberty) as the ability to act according to one's will, without external compulsion. He argues that human actions are determined by prior causes, but this doesn’t negate freedom as long as the individual is not being physically or externally constrained.
Key Idea: Freedom is acting according to your will, even if your will is causally determined by motives and desires.
Ayer: Ayer emphasizes that freedom means the absence of constraint, not the absence of causality. For Ayer, people are free as long as they are not coerced or compelled by external forces. He introduces the distinction between actions being caused and actions being constrained. Even if actions are causally determined by a person’s beliefs, desires, and personality, the person is free as long as they are not forced to act against their will.
Key Idea: Freedom is the absence of constraint, not the absence of causes.
Hume=caused =still free
Ayer=not caused= not free
Hume “Men still entertain a strong propensity to believe that they penetrate farther into the powers of nature and perceive something like a necessary connection between the cause and the effect. When again they turn their reflections towards the operations of their own minds and feel no such connection of the motive and the action, they are thence apt to suppose that there is a difference between the effects which result from material force and those which arise from thought and intelligence.” = men assume bad notion of causation ( force causes a ball to move but we only see ball move) no conjunction btw actions = free will = force causes a ball to move= not free bc it causes the action/ cannot see force= consistent pattern that allow us to predict what happens= formula of physics not real /
In Summary: For Hume, cause is essentially a matter of habit or custom—our mind links two events together because we have seen them occur together repeatedly. Causality is an inference based on patterns of experience, not something intrinsic in objects themselves
Ayer=- cause is understood in terms of determinism—all actions and events are caused by preceding factors in line with the natural order. His focus is on how causality relates to human freedom, arguing that free actions are those that are caused by internal desires and reasons, rather than external constraints.
on quiz
Problem: Buridan’s Ass
donkey placed between equally distance pails of water - which will he choose?
Will the Donkey die of thirst?
Answer:According to compatibilism, the donkey is unconstrained and will therefore freely die of thirst, which is absurd.
Problem: incontinence- drug addict
Question
Is the addict acting freely?
Answer: according to compatibilism, addiction is not constraint, and therefore even if the addict hates their own weakness, they freely maintain their addiction, which is not absurd but seems wrong.
Problem: the classroom
Are you remaining here freely?
Answer: since you decided to say and were able to stay, compatibilists say you stayed freely. But since I had secretly locked the door you were (temporarily) prisoners and couldn’t have chosen otherwise.The idea that you can freely remain locked in prison is absurd
might be on quiz
Three Bonus Objections
Negative Freedom: Questionable argument from subtraction - freedom is just whatever is left over when constraint is removed. Does this really tell us what it is?
“Sean’s Objection” (vagueness): the line between constrained and unconstrained is not well-defined. Is this a problem? Well if we just want a common-sense or legal classification of examples, no. But if we want to know what fact of the matter determines which is which, yes.This goes back to Socrates’ first objection to Euthyphro.
“Isadora’s Objection” (individualism): Assumes that you are free as long as no one or no thing is actually messing with you, does this discount the many ways we need social, familial, economic or institutional support to have the freedom to accomplish actions?
NoteStudied by 34 peopleNoteStudied by 20 peopleNoteStudied by 13 peopleNoteStudied by 13 peopleNoteStudied by 10 peopleNoteStudied by 18952 people