Free Will Definition
In this paper, I will first explain van Inwagen’s definitions of free will and determinism and the connection between the two thoughts. I will then define Stace’s definition of free will and then compare van Inwagen’s traditional definition of free will to the colloquial definition Stace uses to prove Stace’s definition too vague to define all cases of free will. I will ultimately argue that Stace’s compatibilist definition, while at first seems practical, is not a strong enough definition and that van Inwagen’s definition of free will poses fewer puzzling questions and is the stronger definition.
In his essay, van Inwagen defines and raises multiple problems with free will, determinism, and compatibilism. He represents free will and determinism …show more content…
An example Stace gives of a free act would be “Gandhi fasting because he wanted to free India” while an example of an unfree act would be “[a] man fasting in the desert because there was no food” (446). These examples are clear cut to Stace and redefine free will. Instead of an agent being the sole cause of a free act, Stace defines an act of free will as an act in which the immediate cause is a result of the agent’s psychological state. Stace recognizes there were many external causes of why Gandhi fasted, however, the immediate cause was his psychological state which therefore makes it a free act. Oppositely, the man who fasted in the desert had no choice but to fast as there was no food to eat. This example is an unfree act as the man was forced into not eating by his …show more content…
For example, the second unfree act Stace uses is “stealing because one’s employer threatened to beat one” (446). This example in Stace’s opinion is unfree because the employee was compelled to steal. However, this example assumes that the person has no choice but to steal when, depending on what is at stake, the more immediate choice would be to get beaten up. In this example, using Stace’s definition of free will, the employee’s desire to not get beaten up is the immediate cause of the employee stealing which makes this example a free act. Thus, the statement van Inwagen made where “[y]ou should not have done X” (van Inwagen 416) means you could have done X is rewritten into “you weren’t compelled/forced to do X”
In his essay, van Inwagen defines and raises multiple problems with free will, determinism, and compatibilism. He represents free will and determinism …show more content…
An example Stace gives of a free act would be “Gandhi fasting because he wanted to free India” while an example of an unfree act would be “[a] man fasting in the desert because there was no food” (446). These examples are clear cut to Stace and redefine free will. Instead of an agent being the sole cause of a free act, Stace defines an act of free will as an act in which the immediate cause is a result of the agent’s psychological state. Stace recognizes there were many external causes of why Gandhi fasted, however, the immediate cause was his psychological state which therefore makes it a free act. Oppositely, the man who fasted in the desert had no choice but to fast as there was no food to eat. This example is an unfree act as the man was forced into not eating by his …show more content…
For example, the second unfree act Stace uses is “stealing because one’s employer threatened to beat one” (446). This example in Stace’s opinion is unfree because the employee was compelled to steal. However, this example assumes that the person has no choice but to steal when, depending on what is at stake, the more immediate choice would be to get beaten up. In this example, using Stace’s definition of free will, the employee’s desire to not get beaten up is the immediate cause of the employee stealing which makes this example a free act. Thus, the statement van Inwagen made where “[y]ou should not have done X” (van Inwagen 416) means you could have done X is rewritten into “you weren’t compelled/forced to do X”