Whether Free will exists or not, is a question, that has been explored and discussed many times in philosophy. Figuring out what exactly free will is, what it involves, and if it actually exists, is not a matter where common ground is easily found, or ever found. Everyone has at least once asked themselves whether their lives are simply a chain of causal events, whether we truly have a power on freely deciding whether or not we perform an action, or if our lives are controlled by a power that is out of human control, such as God or even fate. An important distinction that has to be made when talking about free will, is also the notion of free action. Can we assume that all "free actions" are the result of our free will?
The goal I am aiming for in this paper, is to show the different perspectives on free will, and how they are not fully convincing. Does free will exist, and if so, what are the requirements for acting freely? The most prominent philosophical perspectives on this topic are determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism, which I will be critically analyzing, while showing the challenges they are facing. As I mentioned already, the discussion about free will and everything else it involves, gives rise to controversy and disagreement. However, what I aim in achieving, is a clear understanding of the problematic of determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism, while also involving the notion of luck, which seems to be forgotten by many philosophers, although it plays an important role in the matter.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. What is ‘free will’?
2.1. Determinism
2.2. Libertarianism
2.3. Compatibilism
3. What is wrong with these approaches?
3.1. Compatibilism and our intuition
3.2. Libertarianism and luck
4. Conclusion
5. Bibliography
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to critically examine the major philosophical perspectives on free will—specifically determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism—to assess whether they successfully account for the existence of free will and its implications for moral responsibility, while addressing the often-overlooked influence of luck.
- Conceptual analysis of free will and free action
- Critical evaluation of the deterministic perspective
- Analysis of the libertarian requirement for agency
- Examination of the compatibilist view on causal chains
- The role of "luck" (constitutive and present) in challenging traditional free will doctrines
Excerpt from the Book
3.2. Libertarianism and luck
Libertarianism is the opposite view and claims that indeterminism is the only way of having a free will. Remember, libertarians set the requirements for free will, to be the ability to act otherwise, and the fact of being the ultimate source. So, when I am facing all these possibilities to act otherwise, I need to be able to settle for one of those options. Only after having settled for one option and only if I am the ultimate source of the action, then I can have a free will and be morally responsible for it.
What causes a trouble to libertarianism, is the inescapable notion of luck. As the philosopher Neil Levy states, we can encounter different types of luck. I will talk about the most relevant types of luck for this paper, which are constitutive luck, which is described as “luck in the traits one happens to have” and present luck. Now, we all can agree on the fact that we do not choose the family we are born in, and it is all a matter of luck. They way that my family will treat me, will impact me in such way, that my character and traits are formed according to that. Since me being born in that specific family was a matter of luck, the traits I got because I was born in that specific family, are part of the constitutive luck. The problem with this type of luck, is that all my traits were created completely out of my control and based on luck.
Consider this simple case. I am having breakfast in the morning, and I am undecisive about whether I will eat a banana, or an apple. This is the type of situation, where a libertarianist (and most people actually), would say that I have a free will because 1) I have the ability to do otherwise (eat the apple or eat the banana), and 2) I am the only source of the action I will perform. Suppose also that I have the exact same reasons for eating a banana or eating an apple, because I love them both exactly as much. What follows, is that I will randomly choose between one of both, and it is a matter of luck, which one I truly end up choosing. Is it not bizarre to say that we are talking about a free will in this case, when we are really just talking about luck?
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the philosophical controversy surrounding free will and outlines the paper's goal of analyzing competing doctrines while highlighting the role of luck.
2. What is ‘free will’?: This chapter establishes the fundamental definitions of free will and free action, serving as a basis for the subsequent analysis of opposing philosophical schools.
2.1. Determinism: An examination of the deterministic view, which posits that all events are causally connected, thereby excluding the possibility of free will.
2.2. Libertarianism: An overview of the libertarian stance, which argues that free will is only possible if determinism is false and the agent remains the ultimate, uncaused source of actions.
2.3. Compatibilism: An analysis of the compatibilist perspective, which maintains that free will and determinism can coexist if actions are caused in the "right way" and are free from external impediments.
3. What is wrong with these approaches?: This section introduces a critical analysis of the previously discussed doctrines, questioning their foundational claims and logical consistency.
3.1. Compatibilism and our intuition: A critique of compatibilism, arguing that its definitions of free will fail to address situations where an agent’s desires are manipulated.
3.2. Libertarianism and luck: This chapter highlights how the element of luck challenges the libertarian requirement that an agent must be the ultimate source of their actions.
4. Conclusion: The author summarizes the findings, concluding that existing doctrines are potentially flawed and suggesting that new definitions are required that account for the corrosive influence of luck on agency.
5. Bibliography: A comprehensive list of the academic sources and texts referenced throughout the paper.
Keywords
Free will, Determinism, Libertarianism, Compatibilism, Moral responsibility, Causal chain, Agency, Luck, Constitutive luck, Impediments, Philosophical doctrines, Choice, Moral luck, Action, Indeterminism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper regarding free will?
The paper explores whether the existence of free will has been successfully explained by prominent philosophical doctrines and asks if these doctrines provide convincing requirements for agency.
What are the primary philosophical schools of thought discussed?
The author analyzes three main perspectives: determinism, which denies free will; libertarianism, which requires indeterminism; and compatibilism, which argues that free will can coexist with determinism.
What is the ultimate research question?
The core question is whether the philosophical requirements for acting freely—proposed by various doctrines—are valid, or if they need to be significantly readjusted in light of challenges like luck.
What methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a critical analytical approach, examining logical arguments and thought experiments to assess the strengths and weaknesses of determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body defines the concepts of free will and responsibility, analyzes the internal contradictions within each doctrine, and introduces the specific role of luck in undermining agent control.
Which keywords best characterize this academic work?
Key terms include free will, determinism, compatibilism, libertarianism, moral responsibility, and constitutive luck.
How does the author define the relationship between moral responsibility and free will?
The author argues that free will is generally treated as a necessary condition for moral responsibility, meaning that if one cannot control an action, they cannot be held morally responsible for it.
Why is the concept of 'luck' introduced as a critique?
Luck is introduced to show that even in scenarios where an agent seems "free," external factors or random outcomes—which are clearly outside the agent’s control—often dictate the result, thereby invalidating the claim of being the "ultimate source" of an action.
What does the author suggest in the conclusion?
The author concludes that existing doctrines are not fully convincing and suggests that future research must find a new definition of free will that ensures an agent can cause their own actions in a non-determined way that is resistant to luck.
- Quote paper
- Sabrina Fiel Abade (Author), 2022, The Existence of "free will", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1362366
