1. Second Lecture Phase Free Will Lecture 6 The issue, the Options

2. Choice I think “Hmmm, should I do some work or go to the pub?” Either is open to me. I try to decide what to do, to determine what I will do. It is up to me.

3. A B An open future…. Freedom… other crucial ideas go along with it.. Praise blame, anger…

4. Could Have Done Otherwise The CHDO principle: that free will implies that I CHDO. Sometimes called the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) But …

5. Determinism The thesis that previous states of the world fix what happens later, including what we do. Many say that as a scientific principle there is reason to believe this. So whether I raise my right or my left arm was determined centuries before I was born. So, determinism means … that I could not have done otherwise. So … we are not free…

6. Note on Determinism and Quantum Mechanics: Determinism, as a doctrine about the physical world is not quite true, which makes a complication since much of the debate for centuries has been cast in terms of determinism. Quantum mechanics, so we are told, means that there is chance at a minute sub-atomic level. How much of a difference does this make? A) Many say that although at the subatomic level, where a particle might have an equal chance of spinning up or down, such probabilities are cancelled out at the macro-level, at the level of the brain, so it makes no real difference to the debate. B) One could modify that general doctrine about the physical world to say that the chances of events are entirely fixed by previous events and the laws of physics. C) It is not clear how randomess/chance in the world helps the existence of free will (a compatibilism/soft determinist point) since a random event is not an action, since it does mean that a person is responsible for it.

7. Compatibilism However, maybe we can be both free and determined. How could this be? A. J. Ayer… argues that actions flow from me, my character… ‘free’ contrasts with ‘constrained’… something outside me was compelling me to do something. Contrast you moving your arm with someone else moving it.

8. Options FW & not-Det Not FW & Det FW & Det Libertarianism Hard Determinism Soft determinism Are FW & Det compatible? Libertarianism and Hard determinism agree on incompatibilism. Soft determinism is compatibilist A new debate!

9. Van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument Initial conditions Plus Laws of nature … Determine what we do. So, we could not have done otherwise. So, we are not free! (An anti-compatibilist argument)

10. Compatibilist replies…(1) ‘Can’? What about the CHDO principle? One idea: direct attention to the exact meaning of ‘can’… or ‘would’. Perhaps all it means or implies is: If I had chosen differently then I would have acted differently…

11. Choice Yes No Laws of nature plus initial conditions

12. (2) Frankfurt (Harry) The neuro-surgeon example. Like two hit-men going to do a crime. He argues that there are intuitive cases of responsibility, such as these, where the CHDO principle fails.

13. (3) Dennett (Dan) Also questions the CHDO principle. “Here I stand I can do no other” (Luther).

14. So there are ways of questioning Van Inwagen’s consequence argument. But if you want to defend it, and thus be an incompatibilist (that is, either a libertarian or a hard determinist) you must find replies to these three objections to the argument. Next week … Problems with compatibilism