Strawson's Argumentative Analysis

I assert that Strawson successfully argues his view that free will and moral responsibility do not exist whether or not determinism is true or false through his argument on self-origination or causa sui. Strawson begins by differentiating the various view of free will. Compatibilists believe that free will is simply having multiple options for action, being able to choose them without constraint and choosing the option that one thinks is best. Incompatibilism is broken into two groups. Libertarians who think that people have free will and that free will is not compatible with determinism. The second groups are pessimists that argue that compatibilist’s views are inadequate and are not compatible with determinism and pessimists believe that free will is necessary for moral responsibility which is impossible to achieve. Strawson supports the pessimist's view of free will because he believes that for you to be morally responsible for your actions you must be the ultimate cause or creation of oneself or of your mental states (causa sui) which is impossible. We ourselves cannot be the cause for our creation. People are the way they are due to hereditary and environmental experiences so how can we be morally responsible for our actions if our actions are based off of recent
4) The weak link in this statement is the part that says certain mental respects. By including “certain mental respects,” someone can give an example of a situation where one can have a high mental state due to “one’s self-conscious awareness of one’s situation” (Strawson p. 8) that can hold you morally responsible for your actions. So by being self-conscious in a situation can be enough for someone to be morally responsible for their