Sider's Argument On Free Will And Determinism
YuYang
Assignment # 2
The “apparent fact” according to Sider is that free will and determinism are in fact incompatible. And they are incompatible because of the following arguments: 1. If determinism is true, then everything happens is caused by something happened previously. 2. If everything happens is caused by something happened previously, then we could not have acted freely. 3. If determinism is true, then we could not have acted freely. To understand this argument, we have to get a clear understanding on what are “free will” and “determinism”. Sider thinks that determinism is a belief of everything happens in the world is caused by something happened previously, which means our actions today were already determined from the beginning …show more content…
Those supporters of free will don’t claim that everything happens without a cause. They instead claim that in most cases, the events are results of human’s free choices and without causes. For example, my choice to turn in this assignment today was not caused by anyone or anything other than my free will. I was free to choose whether I’m turning the assignment in or ignore the assignment and failing this course. Now, we can realize that there’s a problem in believing determinism and free will. They seem conflict and it’s implausible to believe both. When we believe the premise 1, which is the determinism -- According to the theory of determinism, everything happens with a cause. However, Believing No.1 does not mean we have to also believe determinism. The No. 1 premise only states that if we think the determinism is true, we must admit that everything happens with a cause. Here is what the compatibilist reject about, they can’t reject to believe the determinism because determinism is true, so they start to make rejection to the premise No.2 which is a rejection to the free will. It states if we admit that everything happens with a cause, then there’s no point for the human choices to exist – no matter what choice you make is caused by something happened previously. The compatibilist rejects this premise and they think even if everything happens is
Assignment # 2
The “apparent fact” according to Sider is that free will and determinism are in fact incompatible. And they are incompatible because of the following arguments: 1. If determinism is true, then everything happens is caused by something happened previously. 2. If everything happens is caused by something happened previously, then we could not have acted freely. 3. If determinism is true, then we could not have acted freely. To understand this argument, we have to get a clear understanding on what are “free will” and “determinism”. Sider thinks that determinism is a belief of everything happens in the world is caused by something happened previously, which means our actions today were already determined from the beginning …show more content…
Those supporters of free will don’t claim that everything happens without a cause. They instead claim that in most cases, the events are results of human’s free choices and without causes. For example, my choice to turn in this assignment today was not caused by anyone or anything other than my free will. I was free to choose whether I’m turning the assignment in or ignore the assignment and failing this course. Now, we can realize that there’s a problem in believing determinism and free will. They seem conflict and it’s implausible to believe both. When we believe the premise 1, which is the determinism -- According to the theory of determinism, everything happens with a cause. However, Believing No.1 does not mean we have to also believe determinism. The No. 1 premise only states that if we think the determinism is true, we must admit that everything happens with a cause. Here is what the compatibilist reject about, they can’t reject to believe the determinism because determinism is true, so they start to make rejection to the premise No.2 which is a rejection to the free will. It states if we admit that everything happens with a cause, then there’s no point for the human choices to exist – no matter what choice you make is caused by something happened previously. The compatibilist rejects this premise and they think even if everything happens is