Quick viewing(Text Mode)

A Taxonomy of Free Will Positions

A Taxonomy of Free Will Positions

58 Free : The Scandal in

Determinism Libertarianism

Chapter 6 Agent-Causal

Compatibilism Event-Causal Soft Hard Determinism Non-Causal Soft SFA

Hard Incompatibilism Soft A TaxonomySemicompatibilism of Broad Incompatibilism Soft Libertarianism IllusionismFree Will Positions Narrow Incompatibilism Modest Libertarianism Daring Soft Libertarianism Impossibilism Cogito Soft Incompatibilism Leeway Incompatibilism Valerian Model (Alternative Sequences) Source Incompatibilism (Actual Sequence)

Two-Stage ModelThis chapter with on the Limitedweb Determinism and Limited Indeterminism informationphilosopher.com/freedom/taxonomy.html A Taxonomy 59 Indeterminism Taxonomy of Positions The free will Libertarianismdebates of the late 20th century tended to be mono- Determinism logues and diatribes defending narrow niche positions against many other possible positions on free will. This too is part of the scandal in philosophy. Agent-CausalInstead of carving out narrow niches and developing specialized new vocabularies Compatibilism of technical terminology, philosophy would be better served by an effort toEvent-Causal standardize the jargon used in the . We may Chapter 6 Chapter Soft Determinism not be able to achieve the universal, ambiguity-free language that Hard Determinism Leibniz dreamed of and logical positivists hoped for, butNon-Causal we could try to simplify rather than complicate. Soft Compatibilism The next best thing is toSFA provide as complete a set of jargon terms as we can assemble (see the Glossary, and the I-Phi website Incompatibilismversion, which is of course a work in progress). Hard Incompatibilism Of all the terms, the most importantSoft are those Causality used to describe what might be loosely called major “schools” on free will. For Semicompatibilism me, there are three historically significant terms - determinism, Broad Incompatibilismlibertarianism, and compatibilism. This lastSoft is the Libertarianism current name for ’ “soft” determinism, which is the logically con- tradictory notion that free will is compatible with determinism. Determinism Libertarian Narrow Incompatibilism Modest LibertarianismHard Determinism IndeterminismDaring Soft Libertarianism Impossibilism Cogito Compatibilism Soft Incompatibilism Soft Determinism Leeway IncompatibilismFigure 6-1. Traditional categories of the free will debates. Valerian Model (Alternative Sequences)Compatibilism is an old idea, of course. found it in the work of the English thinkers Thomas Hobbes, Source Incompatibilism , George Berkeley, and especially in . (Actual Sequence) Kant described it in his 1788 Critique of , “although the actions of men are necessarily determined by causes which precede in time, we yet call then free, because these causes are ideas produced by our own faculties...“ Two-Stage Model with Limited Determinism and Limited Indeterminism - - - - Peter Peter einer einer and later later and 1 had argued in 1934 that in 1934 that argued had , but the English phrase is is phrase the English , but Carl Ginet Carl , otherwise willed our actions R. E. Hobart to show that if we are determined, we are are we determined, are if we that show to ], that difficult problem, at the solution of atthesolution problem, difficult ], that took up the notion and it was known as the as known was it and the notion up took ein elender Behelf elender ein thought this idea a “quagmire of evasion,” a evasion,” of this idea a “quagmire thought determination 2 argued for “incompatibilism.” This incompatibil This “incompatibilism.” for argued James (1956) p. 149. (1956) p. James Free Will: The Scandalin Philosophy The Will: Free which centuries have laboured in vain, and which can therefore therefore which can and in vain, laboured have which centuries the surface.” on so completely be found scarcely “This is a wretched subterfuge [“miserable substitute” is a is bet substitute” [“miserable subterfuge “Thisis a wretched of translation ter still let persons some which with philosophy] in famous now a with and solved, so think theyhave off, beput themselves for better is quibbling” little “a petty [again, word-jugglery Wortklauberei kleinen standard argument standard 1 Kant (1962) p. 332. (1962) p. 1 Kant 2 No. Logical philosophers say that the alternative is incompati is the alternative that Logical say philosophers No. As we saw in Chapter 3, in Chapter saw we As “Soft” determinism became “compatibilism” in the early 20th in the early “compatibilism” determinism became “Soft” William James William I agree that it is sophistry to solve the problem of free will of and the problem sophistry is solve it to that I agree Mill Stuart John bilism. And they note that there are two ways that determinism determinism that ways two are there that they And note bilism. would be random. Ginet and van Inwagen used the first part of used part the first Inwagen van and Ginet be random. would the Q.E.D.? true. not is compatibilism Therefore, free. not perhaps required, or even entailed, determinism - was not true. not - was determinism even entailed, or required, perhaps free will involves ism was not simply arguing that determinism was not true, but true, but not was determinism that arguing simply not was ism free will involved, - that premise compatibilist the presumed that century. It was, and still is, the most popular view of philosophers, philosophers, view of popular still the most is, and was, It century. when challenged was it although Inwagen van Incompatibilism Changes the Taxonomy Incompatibilism Changes the ing the caged bird to liberty with one hand, while the other with hand, liberty to one with bird the caged ing get does not it sure make leg to its tie to a string anxiously we sight.” our beyond “eulogistic terminology,” and a “mere word-grabbing game played played game word-grabbing a “mere and terminology,” “eulogistic restor of pretense “they a make He says determinists.” the soft by Hume-Mill tradition of reconciling freedom with determinism. determinism. with freedom reconciling of tradition Hume-Mill determinism by a language game that redefines freedom. redefines that game a language by determinism 60 Chapter 6 is true. This is true. James’traditional “hard” determinism. Van ian view. Free is Determinism false. is true. will and incompatible.can be will free The first the is libertar normal often todaythe in working vocabulary. Inwagen’s jargon new has The succeeded. old terms are lessseen “incompatibilists.” What more could be confusing? But van separately,” and namelylibertarians both determinists call they “lumpalso together that and theses should analysed discussed be jargon They are current inthe becausethey useless dialectic). than useless” have (though they accepted as standard been the reconciliation). He wrote in1983: freedom-determinism dichotomy (with compatibilism their incompatibilism dichotomy made more than traditional the sense Inwagen convinced many philosophers that a compatibilism- 3 In my view, it is van Inwagen’s terms new that are “worse But there is another possibility. Free and is false determinism will vocabulary of philosophers.”vocabulary worse than useless and ought dropped to be from working the andshould analysed separately. discussed be They aretherefore “I lump terms object to they these because together that theses junction of incompatibilism and thesis that the we have will. free determinism and incompatibilism; is con the libertarianism compatibilism; hard determinism is conjunction the of “Soft determinismthe conjunctionis of determinism and worse inthat than respect our terms. defined by means the of terms we use andshall arethus no ground that are they vagueeasily or be can They ill-defined. ism; and ‘libertarianism’. Idonot terms to object on these the “I have for no use terms the ‘soft determinism’, ‘hard determin compatibilism. thesis that the andcall will determinism free are compatible It convenient be will thesis incompatibilism this to call and to “I argue shall that is incompatible will free with determinism. Van Inwagen (1983) p. 13. A Taxonomy ofFree Will Positions 3 - -

- 61

Chapter 6 5 Randolph Libertarianism Incompatibilism said in her Stanford Encyclopedia of Encyclopedia of Stanford her in said 4 Hard Determinism Van Inwagen’s compatibilism-incompatibilism categories. compatibilism-incompatibilism Inwagen’s Van ’s SEP article on free will thus has the convoluted and and the convoluted has free will on thus article SEP ’s Kadri Vihvelin Kadri Compatibilism (Why not an entry on the problem of free will of and entry the problem an on not (Why determinism?)” “Why an encyclopedia entry on arguments for incompatibilism? incompatibilism? for encyclopedia entry arguments an on “Why 4 plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/ 5 plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/ So I have developed an extended version of the traditional the traditional of version extended an developed So I have Free will is not a puzzle to be dis-solved by the logical paradoxes the logical paradoxes by be to dis-solved a puzzle will not is Free Figure 6-2. Figure obscuredis in also determinists are compatibilists factThe that The van Inwagen taxonomy looks like this, then taxonomy Inwagen van The It seems to me embarrassing for libertarians to have to describe to have libertarians to for embarrassing me seems to It If “soft” determinism was a “quagmire of evasion,” van Inwagen’s Inwagen’s van of evasion,” “quagmire a was determinism “soft” If As Free Will: The Scandalin Philosophy The Will: Free (hard) determinism - libertarian (indeterminist) - compatibilism - libertarian - compatibilism determinism (indeterminist) (hard) “useless.” thought Inwagen van that distinctions determinist) (soft conceptual analysis. conceptual A New Taxonomy they by what defined are Positions free will of positions. taxonomy based is the traditional on It not. they are what than rather are, will” for their “compatibilist free will,” in opposition to a supposed a supposed to in opposition free will,” their “compatibilist for will” “libertarian free will.” unintelligible especially those the philosophers, analytic of games language and their clear on themselves who pride philosophers language this taxonomy. It helps the compatibilists to co-opt the term “free the term “free co-opt to the compatibilists helps It this taxonomy. confusing title “Incompatibilist (Nondeterministic) Theories.” Theories.” (Nondeterministic) “Incompatibilist title confusing themselves as “incompatibilists,” especially since incompatibilism especially incompatibilism since “incompatibilists,” as themselves determinists. libertarians and together” “lumps Clarke “incompatibilism is a deeper and darker “tarpit of confusion.” of “tarpit a deeper darker is and “incompatibilism Incompatibilism, article on Philosophy 62 Chapter 6 Figure 6-3. Taxonomy of Free Will Positions Determinism Indeterminism

Hard Determinism Compatibilism Libertarianism A Taxonomy ofFree Will Positions Soft Determinism

Hard Incompatibilism Soft Compatibilism Event-Causal Agent-Causal

Illusionism Semicompatibilism Incompatibilism SFA Non-Causal

Impossibilism Narrow Incompatibilism Broad Incompatibilism Soft Causality

Valerian Model Soft Incompatibilism Modest Libertarianism Soft Libertarianism

Source Incompatibilism Leeway Incompatibilism Cogito Self-Determination (Actual Sequence) (Alternative Sequences)

Two-Stage Model with Limited Determinism and Limited Indeterminism 63

Chapter 6 - - - - “Soft” 6 indetermin are terms in terms are if determinism determinism if “soft” determinism “soft” and deny the of free will. of the existence deny is the most common name used today for for used today name common the most is is the position that every event is caused, in a every caused, is that the is position event baldly claim their position as “free will.” “free as their position baldly claim William James who lamented the fact that some deter some the fact that who lamented James William , the agnostics on determinism say. say. determinism on , the agnostics James (1956) p. 149. (1956) p. James Free Will: The Scandalin Philosophy The Will: Free It is thus difficult today to know what compatibilists are compatibilists what toknow difficult today thus is It 6 This makes compatibilism today much more complicated... more much today compatibilism makes This did we as compatibilism, of sub-categories two divide can We to want compatibilists sophistical) (and sophisticated Today’s “Hard” determinists “Hard” Compatibilism “Hard” determinism “Hard” Here are some brief definitions for the positions in Figure 6-2. 6-2. in Figure the positions for definitions brief some are Here Determinism My new taxonomy calls a determinist a determinist, and and calls a determinist, determinist a new taxonomy My Hard indeterminism. under are Libertarian incompatibilists compati puts it open to criticism that the is new The hierarchy ism of quantum physics.) quantum of ism deeper deeper and sucked into are We with! compatible confusion.” of a “tarpit to evasion,” of “quagmire James’ William include both “the conjunction of compatibilism and the thesis and compatibilism of conjunction both “the include compatibilism of conjunction AND “the true” is determinism that it ways both They want false.” is determinism the that thesis and on agnostic are today compatibilists because most way), either (or the of cognizant are (Most determinism. the of were truewere based their determinism. view on of incompatibilsm, for determinists determinists free compatibilists, For determinism. “soft” of category James’s be, would or determinism, with will compatible is many kinds of or causes for the one possible future. future. possible the one for causes or determinisms of kinds many 9. discussedare in TheyChapter by vented themselves. for the term freedom co-opting were minists will,” by showing clearly their deterministic position. So position. their deterministic be it. clearly showing by will,” see the Glossary. interrelationships, still more For are there Historically, future. possible one just with events of chain arranges other positions in their proper places in the hierarchy. in the hierarchy. places in their proper positions other arranges determinism. under are incompatibilists determinist “free is their position that when claiming a disadvantage at bilists 64 Chapter 6 minism, inany Narrow case. incompatibilism is asimilar concept. ism, but claim that Chapter 4.If our actions are determined, we are not free. If they the indeterminists?). See ism may but true, be that it not does provide (“hard” will free sible. But it is not enough. Many philosophers admit events inaworld with many possible futures. Sequences Actual Sequence the for determinists (hard incompatibilists). since “incompatibilist”a libertarian, is ambiguous and used also erable usage of to loose the term“incompatibilist” the to describe pre-determinism, and that pre-determinism is not It true. is pref dents of philosophy. pp. See 59-61. unambiguous conceptualization, adds difficulties newfor stu language philosophers are who normally committed to clear and determinists and This confusion, libertarians. created by analytic ism are incompatible. Incompatibilists today include hard both responsibility is provably impossible. determinism). illusionthe (i.e., keep massesthe uninformed about “truth” the of should preserve an illusion and usually deny bility are incompatible with determinism, is which “true.”. 7 Libertarians Indeterminism Source incompatibilistsSoft Incompatibilism Impossibilists Illusionists Hard incompatibilists Semicompatibilists Actual Sequence See TimpeSee (2008)forclear account. avery and and provide are hard incompatibilists, is say who will free Leeway believe that believe are hard also incompatibilists.say They by maintaining insociety event breaks causal the chain. is position the that there are random (chance) moral responsibilitymoral alternative possibilities. is the idea that andis idea the will free determin A Taxonomy ofFree Will Positions of events or are agnostic about and will determin free incompatibilists locate say that is incompatible will free with think both free will and will free both think standard argument indeterminism makes free will pos indeterminism makes will free moral responsibility. Some say we Alternative Sequences is compatible with deter 7 against in will free indeterminism in moral responsi indetermin Alternative moral . An ------65

Chapter 6

- - - - and Actual Henry Henry Alfred Alfred ), , ” - Hobart’s ” - Hobart’s Bob Doyle ’s libertarian ’s , indeterminism indeterminism Determinism . Arthur Holly Comp Holly Arthur Valerian Model Valerian , .” ( Robert Kane Robert

indeterminism in the indeterminism causa sui of Stephen Kosslyn Stephen ), up to us to up John Martin Fischer Martin John adequate determinism adequate , that combine limited limited combine that is the traditional name for decisions that that decisions for name the traditional is Henri Poincaré Henri accept some some accept Daniel Dennett Daniel , , is the idea that most events are adequately adequately are events most the idea is that indeterminists generally accept the view that ran the view accept that generally indeterminists indeterminists are libertarians who think that libertarianswho think that are indeterminists have been discussed by many thinkers, includ thinkers, been discussed many have by indeterminists simply deny any causes whatsoever causes any deny simply indeterminists Robert Kane Robert Self-Forming Action Self-Forming , Modest LibertarianismModest is the is ( Karl Popper Karl , William James William Free Will: The Scandalin Philosophy The Will: Free SFA Models Two-Stage Soft Libertarians Self-Determination Soft Causality Non-causal Event-causal Agent-causal Margenau Mele free-will model, with indeterminism centered in the choice itself. in the choice centered free-will indeterminism with model, Indeterminism ing ton Sequence. They are source incompatibilists. source are TheySequence. and character our determined by choices, our of the result are “ are that decisions etc., values, determined by normal causes, but that some events are not pre not are events some that but causes, normal determined by occasional are because there events, prior from predictable cisely unpredictable with chains start new causal that events quantum to be said are These events futures. the world. Whether in the physical world, in the biological world world in the biological world, in the physical Whether the world. in the mind, or mutations), genetic of driver a key they(where are the They introduce real. are events uncaused and human and both biological and novelty, accidents, of possibility creativity. call this “metaphysical” freedom. freedom. call this“metaphysical” libertarian free will. for occur in events) mechanical quantum likely (most events dom are random, we are not responsible for them. So for responsible not are we random, are also need “ We enough. not is 13). (See stage - in a second Chapter determination not are These theircauses actions. for causes originate agents Some causes. prior any depend on So do not their actions events. 66 Chapter 6 the history of the free will problem. of history the will free the argument “freethe inphilosophy.” scandal will ofidea acomprehensive compatibilism. creators of universe.Chapter the See 28for more details on the of that ideas new makes authors the them of livestheir and co- tion with alimited gives indeterminism generation the also them acter, values, motives, and desires that need, but they reconcilia determination adequate determinism on some determinism inany intelligible for model The will. free compatibilists have along all had excellent reasons for insisting details. thinkers’these pages personal on the ( patibilism, “ and might called be kindofthis freedom is evenmore compatible than standard com with determinism (asboth pre-determinism limited to generating (which denies Cogito Model Cogito If two-stage the widely discussed, might model help us to end It gives compatibilists the whySo accept “comprehensive compatibilism?” that Ibelieve With taxonomy this positions of will free and the I argue that two-stage because models reconcile with will free Two-stage models include “ both Two-Stage inaNutshell Models indeterminism (as First “free,” “will.” then First chance, choice. then Thoughts against in mind, will free we are now ready to turn to pre-determinism

come to us to come ), and R. E.HobartR. that is incompatible with will. free alternative possibilities A Taxonomy ofFree Will Positions David Hume Martin Heisenberg inmy provides model Cogito kindof the William James freely. Actions determination ofby will their char wanted, for example. comprehensive compatibilism ) and an didinhis compatibilism) and adequate determinism first did), canwe say that I-Phi go from us indeterminism . See Chapter. See 12and for action.It is only website for more willfully. standard that is ”.” ” - - - 67

Chapter 6

Top View