PHLA Freedom and Determinism II

Transcription

1 Freedom and Determinism II

2 Compatibilism Two propositions are compatible just in case they can both be true together This does not imply that they are both true, or that one of them is true It just says there is a possible world where they are both true (it might be the real world) example: The Leafs get in the playoffs and The Senators get in the playoffs are compatible, but The Leafs win the Cup and The Senators win the Cup are not compatible! Two propositions are incompatible just in case they are not compatible

3 Compatibilism and Incompatibilism about freedom Compatibilism = Determinism does not (all by itself) rule out freedom of will Incompatibilism = If determinism is true then we are not free (so determinism does rule out freedom of will) There are many possible theories that can be developed from either compatibilism or incompatibilism

4 Hard Determinism holds that Determinism is true Determinism and freedom are incompatible Therefore, we do not have freedom of will Libertarianism (NOT the political theory) holds that We have freedom of will Determinism and freedom are incompatible Therefore, determinism is false Soft Determinism holds that Determinism is true We have freedom of will Therefore, freedom and determinism are compatible

5 Table of Possible Theories Freedom and Determinism are Compatible Freedom and Determinism are Not Compatible Determinism is True Soft Determinism Hard Determinism Determinism is Not True Sober s View Libertarianism

6 Libertarianism Introspective Argument We can tell by direct introspection that sometimes when we face a choice of action we are free and undetermined (but not random) Illustrated by out of character actions Why / how can we trust introspection? Responsibility argument If we are not free then no one is ever responsible for any action Sometimes people are responsible for their actions Therefore, we (sometimes, some of us) are free But maybe no one ever is responsible for anything (including those who punish wrong-doers ) Or maybe responsibility is something else...

7 Soft Determinism Hume s Theory For Hume, S acts freely = S could have done otherwise IF S had wanted to do otherwise example free action: handing over money to a gunman example unfree action : staying in a room where you are chained to the floor Hume s theory more or less accords with out intuitions about when people are free (what about the gunman case?) Problem: abnormal desires/obsessions example: kleptomania Hume s theory says the kleptomaniac is acting freely!

8 Soft Determinism Hume s Theory Locke s locked room objection The person who stays freely in the room fails Hume s test of freedom 2 nd Order desire soft determinism A 2 nd order desire is a desire aimed at other desires The kleptomaniac has the 2 nd order desire not to want to steal The drug addict has the 2 nd order desire not to want heroin But what about a drug that made you want it, and made you want to want it (etc.)? John Locke ( )

9 Sober s Compatibilist Theory The weather-vane analogy The weather-vane is free when functioning properly Even then it s actions are still caused But a stuck weather-vane is unfree - its actions too are caused but in this case it is malfunctioning What is function Artifacts: their function depends on the intentions of their designers (If God designed us then we (and our parts) might have function in the way artifacts do) Biological creatures: function is defined in term of the history and evolution of the creature (and its parts)

10 Sober s Compatibilist Theory Evolutionary function The function of something is one of its effects the one that explain why it persisted thoughout (or was selected for) evolutionary history example: the function of the heart is to pump blood Why? Because the heart does pump blood and this explains why it was selected for by evolution What is the function of the peacock s tail?

11 Sober s Compatibilist Theory Evolutionary function of Belief and Desire The function of belief is to represent what is true Why would that be evolutionarily beneficial? The function of desire is to represent what is good for the organism Why would the be evolutionarily beneficial? But sometimes it s better to believe the false example: false belief causes you to miss airflight that crashes But it is better in general to believe the true But organisms frequently desire what is not good for them example: heroin but think about why heroin gives pleasure...

12 Sober s Compatibilist Theory The Desire Generating Device (DGD) and Belief Generating Device (BGD) are functioning properly when it produces desires that are typically good for the organism and beliefs that are usually true Obsessive desires stem from a malfunctioning DGD Brainwashing is way to break down the functioning of the BGD and DGD so that they malfunction Freedom = acting on the basis on one s own beliefs and desires in situations where one s own DGD and BGD are functioning properly

13 Sober s Compatibilist Theory Answer to the distant causation argument Sober denies that we are not responsible for actions caused by events completely beyond our control Causal vs. Moral responsibility Causal responsibility is not threatened by the fact that there are preceding causes (as in chain of causes C1 > C2 > C3 > E; C3 causes E even though C1 initiates the chain of events) Is moral responsibility different S is morally responsible for E if S caused E and (says Sober) E reflects S s moral character It is hard to know exactly what this means and what Sober says is confusing If you do something out of character are you free of any responsibility for the act?

14 Sober s Compatibilist Theory Answer to the distant causation argument Maybe what Sober should say is that S is morally responsible for E if S caused E and S s BGD and DGD were functioning normally (so S is free) Can you think of counterexamples to this (cases where S acts freely to bring about E but is not responsible) Answer to the could not have done otherwise argument Freedom is not the power to act outside of causality Freedom is acting based on a properly functioning cognitive system We can add: if S had believed/desired differently then S would have acted differently

15 Sober s Compatibilist Theory Answer to the could not have done otherwise argument Could not a properly functioning BGD and DGD be manipulated in a way that would destroy freedom? Problem of free self-sacrifice The problem is that sometimes people act in ways that seem to go against a proper functioning belief and desire system and yet there does not seem to be any impairment of freedom Example: Is the suicide bomber acting freely?