●​ Introduction

○​ A classic argument in philosophy is do we have free will, or are our actions

determined? There are three main schools of thought
■​ Libertarians, who believe that we do have free will
■​ Hard Determinist, who argue that our actions are determined and that we
do not have free will
■​ And Soft Determinists, also known as compatibilists, who argue that while
our actions are determined to some degree, we still have some level of
choice in our actions.
●​ Acording to Hume, we are determined yet free, namely that
freedom means we can still choose other options.
●​ A different take on soft determinism defines free actions in term of
second order desires, aka the desire for desires. A Free action is
an action taken in accordance with someones first order and
second order desires. An example from the text book is a
compulsive gambler who does not want to gamble anymore but
continuing to do so is not free.

●​ Determinism
○​ We tend to believe that we are often acting freely but some claim that this is only
surface level. We like the feeling of being able to do what we want and being free
to act as we will, the question though is what if “what we will” is not under our
control?
○​ Free will means being an agent who is the source of their own actions, that your
choices are up to you.
○​ Free will is important to us as we need to be free in order to be responsible for
our own actions. We often praise or blame people based on the assumption they
are free. If they are shown to have some sort of predisposition to alcohol or
kleptomania, then we look at them with sympathy compared to someone who
does the same without that predisposition.
○​ This leads us to casual determinism, which posits that the state of a world at a
given time leads to the state of the world at the next moment. If this is true, then
every event is the result of other causes and not our own free will, and thus our
actions are the result of earlier choices.
○​ This means free will is a problem, because our sense of free will conflicts with the
structure of our world.
○​ Not all determinists are naturalists, some could be theistic, such as calvinists.
○​ Not all naturalists are determinist.

●​ Hard Determinism
○​ Hard determinism is associated with D’holbach, which is that what we call free
will is a “modification of the brain.” That We necessarily seek to enhance/ensure
our own existence. As Natural beings we are wholly subject to the laws of nature.
 Thus, forces independent of us create our desires and drives in us that determine
what we do.
○​ According to D’ohlbach, He saw our actions being determined as a natural
consequence of us being physical beings
○​ D’ohlbach lived in a time before genetics, but many of his ideas are precursors to
our research on the genetic code, and how we look at our genes for reasons we
make the choices we do, or certain genetic traits that result in mental conditions.
○​ Reductionism
■​ Reductionism is the view that all parts of the world can be traced back to
or reduced to one certain thing.
○​ Mental states are our brain states which are our biological states which are
physical states
○​ The difference between the causes of human actions and the causes of physical
actions is that our actions have all sorts of invisible causes in our brain.
○​ One example is:
■​ belief+desires+temperment=action
○​ Hard determinists argue that just because we can not pin point the exact factors
that led us to an action, we could, in theory, isolate them. We just need to know
more about the various factors in our head.

●​ Libertarianism
○​ The core tenets of Libertarian Free will are as follows
■​ We have free will
■​ Free will is incompatible with determinism
■​ Therefore, determinism is false
○​ Richard Taylor, a defender of libertarianism, advocated for theory of agency, or
self-determinism
■​ Free acts must be caused by the agent themselves as a whole being.
■​ While seemingly contradictory to the natural world following predictable
natural laws, it is based in how we understand the experiences of our
ordinary day to day lives.
■​ He further argued against soft determinism, namely that if even internally
caused actions must have prior causes too, of sorts that are determined,
then soft determinism collapses into hard determinism, as all acts are
determined. Thus Taylor does not believe in soft determinism, as saying
someone is free implies they could have acted otherwise.
■​ His argument against indeterminism were that acts born from random
chance are out of any one’s responsibility, and thus responsibility would
not apply
■​ He believes our actions are free. In his theory of agency, free actions are
are those caused by the person, A free action is not cause by something
within the person, but by someone as a whole being.
■​ Relatedly, he had the concept that we as whole beings are morally
responsible for what we do.
 ○​ Problems with Taylor’s views
■​ For many people, Agent causation is overly mysterious. It requires agents
to be the uncaused cause of their actions, to be prime movers unmoved,
when we do think of examples in which we are influenced or cocered into
doing something, we are being moved thus choosing unfreely.
■​ But we also live in a world of advertising and propaganda, which use
persuasive techniques to get people to believe or do something. If some
is influenced by them, then is their free will reduced because of it?
Additionally, this may be against their best interest.
●​ Compatibilism/Soft determination
○​ Compatibilists believe that, somewhat like hard determinists, that the universe
operates with law like order, and that the past determines the future.
○​ The also believe there is something about some human actions, that some of the
actions we take really are free.
○​ Compabilitists believe that while actions are determined, that is it couldn't not
happen, but when the action of an agent is self determined or determined by
causes internal to themselves, then that action is free.
○​ This creates a complicated argument when it comes to morality. At what point are
we free or not for our actions?
○​ Frankfurt argues that there are cases where someone is still morally responsible
for actions they take even when they have the one action. These Frankfurt Cases
argue that if you did what you would have wanted to do otherwise, you were still
free.
○​ Some argue that since in many cases it is impossible to separate internal and
external factors, that actions are more or less free depending on how many
internal factors vs external factors are at play.
○​ Churchland argues that as social animals, we can’t help but describe praise or
blame to actions. She argues that “Am I free?” is the wrong question, and what
we should ask is “How much control do I have?” which is how we can assign
moral blame.
○​ Joseph Keim Campbell also argues in favor of Compatibilism.
■​ He argues that as we do have the opportunity to take other actions, we
are morally responsible. Even if Determinism is true, there remains a
sense that you can still do otherwise or take a different path, You will do
otherwise if you choose so, which is compatible with determinism.
○​ Indeterminism, which is separate from free will, argues that some events are not
completely determined by their causes. Some people argue that this means we
do not have free will, while some are compatibilists.
○​ One type of unfreedom is a compulsion
○​ Another type is coercion, which is the use of force to get others to take certain
actions. They are external, while compulsions are internal.
○​ William James
■​ William james was an indeterminist who claimed there was always some
loose play among parts of the universe, and that whatever does happen,
happens because of chance and not out of necessity and laws. He
argued there were two types of rationality, either everything is determined,
or everything is random.