discussion1 : Compatibilism
COLLAPSE
Watch the video below. Then, explain your understanding of compatibilism.
What is your response to this theory? What problems do you find with it, if
any?
Compatibilism: Crash Course Philosophy #25. YouTube video file. [8:54].
Crashcourse. 2016, Aug 22. youtu.be/KETTtiprINU
reply students post separately
(start with hello ….. ) because in your replies you directly talk with them
student 1 (sarai)
My understanding of compatibilism is that we have free will because our actions were
decided by us and because even if we had decided otherwise, it would still happen. In
other words, this sounds like fate and how we are destined for something, so even if it
is our choice, a greater force had predetermined it that way.
However, it is hard to believe that the result of one choice or the other will be the
same. For instance, the guy with the tumor, he would not have done what he did if he
had not had the tumor. Though it can be argued that he could have chosen not to act
on his urges, but he did. Maybe he can be partly blamed for it because maybe deep in
his dormant consciousness, he had those desires, but he would not act on them
because they were not that strong. When the tumor appeared, it made his desires so
irresistibly strong and he chose to act on them.
About the mental case, I do not know how to respond to that one because those are
still that person’s choices, but they are affected by the illness. In this case, I think it
can be argued that the illness is strongly compelling them to act on the impulses, so
maybe they are not to be held accountable for all of their actions.
student 2 (katharyn
My understanding of compatibilism is somewhere between free will and determinism.
In this understanding, the end result is predestined and how you get there may or
may not involve some level of your free will, depending on internal or external factors.
If we operate on a notion internal to ourselves, then that would be classified as free
will. For example, if I choose to work overtime this weekend because I want some
extra spending money, then that is an internal decision. If I am being mandated to
work overtime by my employer due to their needs, that is not considered free will, but
the end result is the same. One problem I do find with this theory is the explanation of
Frankfurt cases, where its explained that you are responsible for the choices you
have chosen, even if you couldn’t have done something other than what you had
chosen. I find difficulty in this because if you are backed into a corner and you only
have one option, you aren’t truly acting in any capacity of free will. I did lean more
towards Churchland’s theory about control, rather than questioning free will. Her
theory states that the more control we have, the more responsibility we have. For
example, if you are backed into a corner and your only chance to defend yourself is
fight or flight, the responsibility for that decision should be decreased as your control
was impacted. The main piece of compatibilism that resonates with me is the cause
and effect, and how that plays into our decision making. None of our decisions are
truly free as we are constantly evaluating the cause and effect to each decision and
situation. Essentially, all of the decisions or choices that we make in life are reliant on
other factors, so nothing is 100% undetermined.
student 3 (amani)
Compatibilism, in a sense, tries to permit the dual existence of determinism and freewill. It
implies that freewill is a measure of how much control (internal factors) a person has over
his/her decision versus how much external influences (external factors) affect the
decision making. If the decision-making process is dominated by internal factors, then it
can be asserted that it is a freewill decision. However, if it is dominated by external
factors, then it is said to be deterministic.
I think the theory well-combines determinism and freewill in one concept. It also provides
a gradient for how a person can measure his/her controllability over any decision-making
process.
Although the theory nicely portrays the influence of internal and external factors on how
much control (freedom) a person has over a decision, Capitalism does not provide a
source for the internal factors. If those internal factors originate from neurological
electricity inside our brains, then we are back to square one: regardless of whether the
source of the factors leading to a decision is internal or external, the decision in both
cases will be predetermined by an entity that is outside a person’s control. This implies
the non-existence of freewill.
discussion 2 : Do We Have Free Will?
COLLAPSE
Rachels suggests that the case against free will appears to be a strong one.
(We should not confuse the discussion of free will as being about political
freedom, which is about the liberty that one has within a particular state.)
Regarding the impressive evidence of modern psychology and contemporary
biology, Rachels says the following: "As far as free will is concerned the
overall trend is not encouraging. Each new discovery chips away a bit more of
our confidence. The more we learn about the sources of human conduct the
less room there seems to be for the idea of free choice." How can you square
this evidence with your feeling of freedom? If you think you have free will, how
can you defend your position? Often in this discussion, students make claims
such as “I have free will because I make choices” or “I have free will because I
can do whatever I want.” But such responses commit the fallacy of begging
the question. Essentially, such claims say ‘I have free will because I have free
will.’ In your response, try to avoid committing this fallacy.
Works Linked/Cited:
Bennett, Bo. Begging the Question. Logically Fallacious. 11 Dec 2017.
www.bit.ly/2phgQy3. Accessed 30 April 2018.
student 1 (samantha)
The argument about free will is a hard one to argue at this point because this class has shown
me all the ways that we technically don't even have free will. I could take the religious
approach but I don't necessarily follow religion so I am not qualified to argue using the "God
gave us free will" approach and either way, that argument is easily argued as well. Technically
speaking, free will does not exist. Technically speaking, our mindset and thoughts/actions are
completely influenced by the people around us. Technically speaking, this means we do not
choose our own actions completely by our own free will but on the opinions and actions of
those around us along with our own thoughts acquired by the influences of other people. The
easiest argument for free will is that once one is aware of the influencing happening to their
own thoughts every day, they can choose to allow those opinions to change their own
mindset, or to allow it to remain the same. So I guess essentially, all freewill is, is the changing
or unchanging of one's mindset on different topics and actions in life.
student 2 (amani)
It looks like Rachels and Rachels are trying to push us to believe that freewill
does not exist. However, their argument suffers few fallacies. If freewill does not
exist, then why members of the same family choose different paths?! If we are
products of environmental circumstances, then why did I choose to major in
computer science, and didn’t my sister choose so? Is it because she
experienced this minuscular different experience from mine that lead her to
select some major other than computer science? Penfield experiments suggest
the existence of an external stimulus to trigger the effects on the brain. This
means that all our actions are results of neurological behavior. If this is the case,
then why brothers and sisters of the same house take different decisions
although they eat the same food and breath the same air?
The other issue with Rachels’ argument is that it does not explain innovation. If
our actions are products of our environment, then how and why do we innovate?
How some of us grow to be PhD holders while others grow to be businessmen
or businesswomen? I understand the influence of the social factor, but that does
not explain how a middle-class family member like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs
grows to be a billionaire? It does not explain why children of rich families
sometimes fail despite all the environmental stimuli favoring their success.
As for Stanley Milgram’s experiment, in 2012, the Australian psychologist Gina
reviewed Milgram’s data and writings. She concluded that Milgram had
manipulated the published results to suit the desired conclusion. Before that, in
2004, a participant of the Milgram’s experiment named Joseph Dimow “wrote
about his early withdrawal” suspecting the intensions of the experiment.
Milgram pointed that none of his participants quit or showed remorse for
continuing the experiment to its end. Several other findings that discredit the
experiment are mentioned in the article (Milgram Experiment).
Rachels and Rachels claim that some genes trigger some people to act more
violently compared to others. This is a very sound claim. However, what shapes
humans is not only the genes. The environment plays its role too, and a morale
God would want us to choose good over evil if we are to choose heaven over
hell. This choice is a freewill one. Why brothers and sisters of the same family
grow to choose being good or evil although they all come from the same
parents’ genes and are exposed to the same environment? It’s free will that let
us decide who we want to be.
student 3 (emily)
I find free will to be something that is difficult to talk about or even be open about since it can
stir so many emotions and thoughts in my head. My first statement regarding this question
would be yes, I think I have my own free will as I do make decisions that are best suited for me
and what is going on in life for me at that time. However, I can also see the point of view that
having "free will" is an illusion of something that we all think and truly believe we have, as fate
or a bigger source has our whole lifeline planned out. Although our fates may already be laid
out, I still believe we all have our own free will. If we all have a destined fate to end somewhere,
for example, finding your forever job, you might go on many paths of decisions that you had
made previously just to get there. Even though fate determines were we all land, it cannot
control every decision we make in our lives, its job is to go with the flow and direct us to
where we need to be through us experiencing life. Free will is our own adventure and what you
want to do and fate is just a guide to make sure we don't get too lost in the process.
discussion 3 : Moral Responsibility and Determinism
COLLAPSE
Given what you know about arguments for determinism, what problems do you
see regarding moral responsibility, as well as praise and blame? Most of us
praise others, and ourselves, for actions we deem praiseworthy; we blame
others, and ourselves, for actions we find reprehensible. If it turns out that
determinism is true, that people are not responsible for their actions, how
might our evaluation of our own actions and the actions of others be affected?
If people can not do other than what they do, should they be praised and
blamed for their actions?
student 1 (phuong)
Making a moral decision is difficult but it is an integral part of everyday life. Sometimes we
ponder on our choices and perform the act that may best carry out motives, but sometimes we
also act without fully considering our alternatives. And when we choose to act, sometimes our
actions fail us, leading to unintended and unfavorable consequences. Moral responsibility
does not only concern itself with wrongful acts but also praiseworthy. When a person is fully
aware of the moral rightness of his action and decides freely to perform the act, he is worthy
of praise because he performs an act that is fully his. If it turns out that determinism is true, it
hard that people are not responsible for their actions, except a person who is forced to commit
a wrongful act is not responsible for his action and its consequences. Man ceases to be the
cause of his act if he is coerced. It is important to note that before a person can be exempted
from moral responsibility, it must be first be proven that the coercion is serious enough to
affect man’s ability to make a free choice, otherwise, the moral responsibility of the person is
imperfect or mitigated.
student 2 (samantha):
From my understanding about determinism, it states that anything that is going to
occur occurs because of previous events making it so, basically like a butterfly effect.
The past controls the future and we, as humans have little to no control over the
future because it is already determined by the events of the past. If the meaning of
determinism is true, then there is no such thing as moral responsibility or possibly
even morality. How can there be such things if everything that is going to happen is
not even determined by people and things around you, it is uncontrollable? Therefore
there is no way to blame someone for the actions because the defense is that their
actions were predetermined. On the other hand, there is no point in praising people
for good deeds because it was not their choice to commit these good deeds
according to determinism.
This "strong determinism" theory or argument is, in my opinion, inaccurate. I do
believe in the butterfly effect as in everything in the past may cause something to
happen in the future but rather than set in stone what the future holds, it may limit or
open possibilities for someone to use their free will, not necessarily determine what is
going to happen completely. Just change ones' way of thought or ones routes of
action.
student 3 (tisbet)
The idea of praise and blame does seem to be rooted in free will. If people cannot help
committing an action can they truly be held responsible for it? I think if determinism
were to be proved to be true the idea of blame would get extremely complicated.
However, I still think blame would be necessary. Although every action would be
determined, actions could still be considered to be bad. If an action negatively impacts
another person, punishment is still necessary because of the effect it had on the other
person. I think the blame system is particularly important as a defense from the bad
actions committed by people.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment